Oral
Answers to
Questions

Transport

The Secretary of State was asked—

Bus Services

Nicholas Fletcher: What steps he is taking to help ensure the continuity of bus services.

Mike Amesbury: What assessment he has made of the implications for his policies of trends in the number of bus services in England since 2019.

Ian Levy: What steps he is taking to help ensure the continuity of bus services.

Luke Pollard: What assessment he has made of the impact of reductions to bus services on local communities.

Richard Holden: Covid-19 resulted in significant reductions to bus service levels and passenger numbers. To mitigate that, the Government have provided more than £2 billion in emergency and recovery funding to keep vital bus services running. On 17 February, we announced a further extension to that support until 30 June. As a result, bus service provision in England outside London remained at more than 85% of pre-covid levels in 2021-22, despite patronage and commercial fare revenue remaining significantly lower.

Nicholas Fletcher: Stagecoach bus services from Doncaster to Worksop—numbers 21, 22 and 25—have daily cancellations due to driver shortages that have been going on for a long time. Posts are put on the Tickhill Community Forum on Facebook by Clare Cutts every day. At a time when we need to shop more locally and support our economy, what more can we do to put pressure on bus companies to deliver the services that we need?

Richard Holden: My hon. Friend, who is a champion for his Don Valley constituency, raises an important issue. I know how important local bus services are to him and  to people across the country, and how constituents can be frustrated by service cancellations. Bus operators are facing a number of challenges, which the Government continue to work with the sector to address. I look forward to meeting him in Don Valley in the coming weeks to discuss the issue further with him and other operators.

Mike Amesbury: On Monday evening, I got a letter from Arriva North West about 13 bus routes being scrapped and two depots being closed in the Northwich part of my constituency, as a result of a strategy called “Bus Back Better”. What is better about that? What will the Minister do to ensure that my constituents can get to their place of work, school or college and go about their everyday business? I ask him to step in.

Richard Holden: The hon. Member raises some important questions. I know that Conservative colleagues have met Arriva in recent days, and I met my hon. Friend the Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Dr Mullan) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Edward Timpson) about the Arriva issues in the area yesterday. My understanding is that D&G Bus is already looking to provide some of the services that Arriva has decided to remove itself from. I note the hon. Member’s concern about the issue and if he would like to meet me, I would be delighted.

Ian Levy: Effective and reliable public transport is essential for our local communities. Reductions in local services in Blyth Valley, including the X10 and X11 to Newcastle, mean that my constituents plan their journeys only to find that the buses are late or simply not coming at all. Many groups who are already at a disadvantage, including the young, the old and people on a low income, rely on those vital services to access healthcare, education and leisure. It is critical that we do not let them down. Will my hon. Friend assure me that we will do everything we can to ensure that those bus services run effectively?

Richard Holden: I thank my hon. Friend for his question. The Government know how important bus services are to local communities across the country, which is why we recently announced additional investment of £155 million not only to continue protecting those services but to ensure a three-month extension to the £2 cap on bus fares to help working people in places such as Blyth Valley who are getting out there every day. We want to help to address the cost of living crisis and encourage people back on to our network. We are committed to working with the sector to ensure that bus services reflect the needs of communities and deliver our ambition for everyone with access everywhere.

Luke Pollard: I do not expect the Minister to know about the 31 bus route in Plymouth, but I do expect him to care about the people who can no longer get that bus because it has been axed—the older people who cannot get to their GP or hospital appointments as easily or bring back their shopping from town. Will the Minister agree to adopt Labour’s policy of handing power over bus routes back to communities? Will he finally give the south-west its fair share of bus funding?

Richard Holden: I thank the hon. Member for his question. Plymouth City Council receives £85,000 a year through the bus service operators grant and has been allocated a  total of £599,000 in emergency and recovery funding for bus services since March 2020. I would be delighted to look at that further, and look forward to visiting Plymouth in the near future.

Lindsay Hoyle: We now come to the shadow Minister.

Simon Lightwood: In 2020, the Government promised to deliver 4,000 zero-emission buses in this Parliament, but just 341 have been ordered, and only six are on our roads. At this rate, it will take 23 years to meet that target, and we will not get diesel buses off our roads completely until the end of the century. With manufacturers ready to deliver a brighter, greener future for Britain’s buses, when will the Minister get out of first gear and match their ambition?

Richard Holden: The hon. Member has clearly missed our announcement this morning of extra buses across the country—an extra £25 million going into York, Norfolk, Portsmouth, and the West Yorkshire Combined Authority and delivering 3,452 zero-emission buses, to date, on that 4,000 target, so we will definitely get there before the end of the Parliament.

Lindsay Hoyle: I did not hear Chorley in that, but maybe the Minister will talk to me later.

Electric Vehicles: Zero Emissions

Matt Western: What recent progress he has made on the implementation of the zero emission mandate for electric vehicles.

Lindsay Hoyle: Go on, Minister.

Jesse Norman: Thank you, Mr Speaker. It is great to see you in such robust form this morning, if I may say so.
A technical consultation on the zero-emission vehicle mandate design’s features was held between April and June of last year. Responses to that consultation are currently being analysed, and the Government will publish their response, alongside a final consultation on the full regulatory proposal, and an accompanying cost-benefit analysis, in the near future.

Matt Western: The industry is extremely concerned about the timings, and fears that it will be left with just six months before implementation on 1 January 2024. Most industry observers would say that at least 24 months is needed for a successful mandate to be introduced. Does he agree that the industry should be concerned about this, and that we need to act much more quickly? Should the Government not also be looking at delivering an infrastructure mandate?

Jesse Norman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his questions. Of course, he will be aware that this is an extremely complex issue, because it involves manufacturers, charge-point providers, energy suppliers and other players in this important and evolving market. There was a Green Paper consultation in 2021. There has been a second consultation on technical issues, as I say, and we work very closely with all those players, and the industry, precisely to ensure that, when this lands with all of its complexities, which it will do in the near future, it lands properly, effectively, and to the benefit of all.

Edward Leigh: The constituency of Gainsborough is 600 square miles, and it takes half an hour to get anywhere even when travelling at the speed limit. What is the Government plan to help rural areas when electric vehicles become mandatory for sale in 2030?

Jesse Norman: As my right hon. Friend will be aware, the Government’s plan is for more than 300,000 charge points to be in place by then. That will be led largely by the private sector, and we meet regularly with all the charge point operators. Their plans are escalating and will be massively supported and benefited by the zero-emission vehicle mandate. With that, and technological advances, we anticipate that there will be ample opportunity for people in rural areas to use electric vehicles.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Gill Furniss: Last year, UK car production slumped to a 66-year low. The covid pandemic, supply chain shortages, and chaos at Dover have left this key industry fighting for survival. Manufacturers are crying out for a shred of certainty, but far from supporting them and the 150,000 workers they employ, this Government are leaving them in a state of limbo. With less than a year to go before it takes effect, why is the Minister still keeping the design of the zero-emission vehicle mandate a well-guarded secret? When can manufacturers expect finally to get some clarity from the Government to allow them to plan for the future?

Jesse Norman: The hon. Lady wildly overstates the issue with regard to electric vehicles. In 2022, we had the second largest market across Europe for electric vehicles, which demonstrates the level of energy and support we are giving the industry, including £2 billion of public money. We consult closely with both large car manufacturers and small manufacturers, who have quite different interests in many different ways. They will be quite comfortable with this important mandate when it comes out, and they will be because we have consulted extensively on it with them over the past two years.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Gavin Newlands: Although we support a zero-emission vehicle mandate to accelerate the switch to zero-emission driving, the Government need to get a grip on it. Businesses—be they manufacturers, dealerships or fleet purchasers—cannot plan, and consumers are in the dark. That chimes with the overall approach to zero-emission driving, with just over 7,000 EV charging installations last year when 33,000 are required annually to meet the 300,000 target. Will we hear more about the mandate, the charger network expansion and equalising the VAT levied on home charging versus street charging in the upcoming Budget?

Jesse Norman: The hon. Gentleman will be aware that I will not comment on the Budget; as a former Financial Secretary, I will certainly not attempt to trespass on the Treasury’s prerogative on tax issues. What he will know, of course, is that the vast majority of that investment is coming from the private sector. Of course, that will itself be massively boosted by the  zero-emission vehicle mandate. I met one of the largest charge point operators only this week, and they were perfectly clear that the one thing that will do more than anything else, not just to reduce carbon but to support the development of that industry and that transition, is the mandate, which we will publish, as I say, in the near future.

Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill

Chris Stephens: What recent discussions he has had with (a) Cabinet colleagues, (b) transport sector bodies and (c) trade unions on the Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill.

Mark Harper: With permission, Mr Speaker, I would like to start by offering our sincere condolences to the people of Greece following the terrible rail accident yesterday. My thoughts, and I am sure those of the whole House, are with the victims, first responders and all those affected. The Prime Minister has written to the Greek Prime Minister to offer the Government’s condolences, and we stand with our colleagues in Greece, ready to offer assistance should they require it.
Turning to the hon. Gentleman’s question, I meet regularly with Cabinet colleagues and transport industry stakeholders to discuss industrial action, including facilitating a fair and reasonable offer for the trade unions, which I was pleased to see Transport Salaried Staffs Association members vote in favour of last week. The Strikes (Minimum Service Levels) Bill aims to balance the ability of workers to take strike action with the needs of the public to go about their daily lives. The 12-week consultation on minimum service levels for passenger rail provides the opportunity for the public and stakeholders, including trade unions and transport bodies, to provide their views.

Chris Stephens: May I associate myself with the comments that the Secretary of State made about the situation in Greece? Our thoughts and prayers are with those affected.
The Department’s consultation document for rail minimum services legislation seeks views on setting a minimum service level in Scotland, which is interesting because the responsibility for ScotRail and Caledonian sleeper services are devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Will the Secretary of State meet me, as part of the consultation process, to discuss what the response of his Department will be if the Scottish Parliament refuses to implement the minimum services legislation because it assesses that the legislation is not conducive to good industrial relations and dispute resolution?

Mark Harper: The hon. Gentleman will know that the purpose and substance of the Bill is to regulate employment rights and duties, and industrial relations. Those are reserved matters that are within the responsibility of the UK Government. In the consultation on passenger rail in Great Britain, we of course welcome the views of devolved Administrations. My hon. Friend the Minister responsible for rail has already had such conversations with Transport Ministers from the Scottish Government.

Aviation: Noise and Fuel

Munira Wilson: What recent assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the potential (a) health and (b) economic impact of noise pollution on communities below aircraft flightpaths.

Jesse Norman: The Government recognise that there are impacts associated with aircraft noise and keep all relevant evidence under review. The Department for Transport has previously commissioned research on the effects of aviation noise on annoyance, health and wellbeing, and has tasked the Civil Aviation Authority to carry out a further survey this year. All major airports are required, as the hon. Lady will be aware, to map their noise impacts on a common basis every five years, and some do so annually.

Munira Wilson: I thank the Minister for his response. My constituents and thousands of residents across west and south-west London and neighbouring counties constantly have to put up with the roaring engines of aircraft overhead at all hours of the day and during much of the night. There are real fears, based on international evidence, that that noise may intensify as a result of airspace modernisation. Will the Minister commit to reinstating the independent noise ombudsman, and to working with Environment Ministers to make aircraft noise a statutory nuisance, so that those residents might have some redress in future?

Jesse Norman: The hon. Lady will be aware that there have been noise-related restrictions on major airports including Heathrow for many years and, more recently, noise maps and noise action plans at Heathrow. Of course, we recognise the seriousness of this issue. It is worth saying that technology is already making a significant difference—new aircraft models make 30% to 50% less noise on take-off and landing—but we intend to consult later this year on proposals for the next night-flight regime, beginning in October 2025.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Mike Kane: The Secretary of State made no commitment on the production of sustainable aviation fuel in the UK at a recent airports conference. This week, the Minister for aviation in the other place said at a pilots reception that airspace modernisation was stuck in the muck. The Government’s Jet Zero Council has achieved exactly what it said on the tin: zero. Labour has a plan for a cleaner, greener future. Get your finger out, Secretary of State!

Jesse Norman: It seems to have passed the hon. Gentleman by that we had a detailed consultation on SAF investment. We have put £165 million into the advanced fuels fund to support five UK sustainable aviation fuel plants, which builds on the “Green Fuels, Green Skies” competition, and we plan to introduce a sustainable aviation fuels mandate in 2025. Modernisation is an extremely complex issue, but it is also vital, in part in order to ensure a more protective approach where possible to the issue of noise impact, as highlighted by the hon. Member for Twickenham (Munira Wilson).

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the Chair of the Select Committee.

Iain Stewart: May I draw my right hon. Friend’s attention to the Transport Committee’s report published today on alternative fuels? One of our recommendations is to build on the work the Government have already done on SAF by introducing a contracts for difference model, which would help to make the UK a world leader in this technology.

Jesse Norman: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his report and the work he is doing as the new Chair of the Transport Committee. We are aware of the calls for CfDs. He may have seen the report published by Philip New on this issue. We are already working on not merely the mandate but a clearing house to support testing and certification. Of course, we will continue to look at the question of CfDs, but the mandate and the work we are doing towards that remains the Government policy, and rightly so.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Gavin Newlands: Decarbonising aviation is difficult, and no one would say otherwise, but there are quick wins to reduce carbon, such as airspace modernisation, which is likely to cost under £30 million, and sustainable aviation fuels, which will be the bridge fuel until future forms of propulsion are introduced. The Government have provided some funding for SAF plants in England and Wales, but the support is dwarfed by support offered elsewhere. Without a CfD model in place to support SAFs, the Government will not get their five plants operating by their target date, and they are nowhere near their long-term targets for SAF use, are they?

Jesse Norman: It is interesting that the hon. Gentleman raises the question of airspace modernisation. He may not be aware that the environmental benefits are already in place. The introduction of free route airspace in 2021 over Scotland is estimated by National Air Traffic Services to save the carbon dioxide equivalent of the power used by 3,500 family homes every year. He is right that this is a complex issue, but it is also one on which the Government are taking a wide range of energetic measures, and we will continue to pursue those, as we have described.

Road Condition

Scott Benton: What steps he is taking to help improve road conditions.

Richard Holden: During this Parliament, the Government are investing over £5 billion in highways maintenance for local authorities across England outside London. That is in addition to the sustainable transport settlements provided to eligible mayoral combined authorities. It is up to each local highway authority to decide how best to spend that funding, and the Government do not generally intervene or override local decision making in these matters.

Scott Benton: Additional Government funding for road maintenance has made a significant difference to the quality of road surfaces across many local authorities,  including my own in Blackpool. Ahead of the Budget, can the Minister reassure the House that he will continue to lobby the Treasury for additional funding to spend on local roads in England?

Richard Holden: I was delighted to visit recently the site near my hon. Friend’s constituency. Great investment is going into the road to link Windy Harbour to Skippool. That is something that I know he has been campaigning for, alongside our hon. Friends the Members for Fylde (Mark Menzies) and for Blackpool North and Cleveleys (Paul Maynard).
As part of the 2021 spending review, the Department worked hard with the highways sector to develop a strong and evidence-based case to the Treasury for a long-term highway maintenance settlement. I assure my hon. Friend that I will continue to make every effort this time, pushing equally strongly—perhaps even more strongly —for sustainable funding for our highways. However, it is worth reflecting on the fact that more money is an important factor, but how we decide to spend it is also very important. I look forward to campaigning with him for a council that can really deliver for the people of Blackpool over the coming months.

Lindsay Hoyle: Based on these answers, I hope we are not going to have this for the next two years.

Stephanie Peacock: Highway maintenance funding continues to be cut for the remainder of this Parliament, resulting in over a tenth of our roads falling into poor condition. When will the Minister finally bring our roads up to the standards that people expect?

Richard Holden: The hon. Lady should reflect on the fact that we have put £5 billion into pothole funding between 2020 and 2025, with millions of potholes being filled every year. The three-year settlement for highways maintenance announced in the spending review is there, and as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool South (Scott Benton), I will be pushing the Treasury for more money to go in this direction.

Rail Modernisation

Paul Howell: What recent assessment he has made of whether railways require modernisation.

Mark Eastwood: What steps he is taking to help ensure efficient and reliable rail services.

Mark Harper: The railway needs fundamental reform and, last month, I set out how this Government will deliver it. We will move towards a more customer-focused and commercially led industry, bringing track and train together through the creation of Great British Railways as a new guiding mind for the sector. While we move forward with reform, the Government continue to hold both train operators and Network Rail to account to deliver the punctual and reliable services that passengers and taxpayers rightly expect.

Paul Howell: Modernisation takes many forms and, in my constituency of Sedgefield, we eagerly await the modernisation of infrastructure through Ferryhill station’s bid under the Restoring Your Railways scheme, which will be the first stage on the Leamside line. We also have Hitachi Rail, which has played a significant role in levelling up the north-east since the factory was opened by the Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron in 2015. Hitachi has created 800 highly-skilled jobs in the region since that factory opened, and is also driving vital innovation in battery and digital technology to modernise the railways. I ask my right hon. Friend to confirm that his Department will make prompt decisions on the business cases under Restoring Your Railways.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. [Interruption.] No, I will decide when you sit down. Sit! We are meant to be asking questions, not make a War and Peace statement before we get there. Come on, quickly.

Paul Howell: Apologies, Mr Speaker. To conclude, I ask my right hon. Friend to visit my constituency and see these outstanding opportunities.

Mark Harper: The Government recognise the contribution of Hitachi to the railway supply chain, particularly its success in winning 89% of long-distance orders since 2010, including the order for High Speed 2 rolling stock. It is important that the Government give full and careful consideration to business cases for new orders, to make sure that they offer best value to the taxpayer, and I recognise my hon. Friend’s continued support for the reopening of Ferryhill station, as well as the work undertaken by Network Rail and Durham County Council. The business case for that scheme has been updated and is being carefully considered by the Department, alongside all bids under the Restoring Your Railways scheme.

Mark Eastwood: After being inundated with complaints from the people of Dewsbury, Mirfield, Kirkburton and Denby Dale, does my right hon. Friend agree that the TransPennine Express rail service is no longer fit for purpose?

Mark Harper: I welcome that question. I am clear, and have made it very clear to TP, that the current service is unacceptable. That company has delivered a detailed and measurable recovery plan aimed at building back a reliable service, but any substantial improvement to that service requires the co-operation of the trade unions, which is yet to be forthcoming. I have weekly meetings to monitor TP, and both I and the Rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), have recently met that company to discuss performance improvement. TP’s current contract expires on 28 May this year. The Department, in partnership with Transport for the North, will make decisions in due course and, of course, update the House accordingly.

Dan Jarvis: At the past two Transport questions, I have asked about Yorkshire’s railway network. In November, the Minister, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), said that assessing options for a new station in Bradford was “an incredibly high priority”, and in January he told me that the Sheffield to Leeds route study would be out “shortly”. I have not heard anything more about either since. When can we expect some good news in Yorkshire?

Mark Harper: The good news for the hon. Gentleman is that we have made progress on that, and we are hoping to set out what will happen on that publicly in the very near future. He does not have too long to wait and I hope he will have news that he will welcome.

Wera Hobhouse: Network Rail has said that 278 miles of track must be electrified every year to reach net zero. Last year, the Government added only 1.4 miles of newly electrified track, including Bath, and we are still waiting for electrification. To meet our net zero targets, will the Secretary of State commit to electrifying all new railway lines?

Mark Harper: The hon. Lady will know that we have electrified 1,200 miles of the rail network in Great Britain since 2010, and that work continues. We clearly think that electrifying the rail network is important for our net zero commitments, and we will continue to make progress. I hope she will welcome that.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Louise Haigh: TransPennine Express has been providing unacceptable levels of service to the north and the midlands for years—well prior to covid—and now they are at truly dire levels. The operator of last resort has made it clear to the Transport Committee that it has capacity and can bring TransPennine Express under its remit. Is the Secretary of State confirming that for ideological reasons he will refuse to step in and provide a better service to the north and the midlands?

Mark Harper: First, in an earlier answer, I said that the service was currently unacceptable. One of the points I made is that, at the moment, ASLEF is refusing to do rest-day working, which is a significant problem. I did what I was asked to do and made sure that a more generous offer for rest-day working could be made. ASLEF is refusing to do so. It requires the co-operation of all involved in rail services to deliver a good service. On the specific contract, it expires on 28 May. We will make decisions and announce them to the House in due course, but I say to the hon. Lady that, if we take services into the operator of last resort, we take over all the things and take them with us. If we do not resolve the issues with the trade unions, then just taking in those services will not actually improve the services to passengers at all. Her obsession with nationalising things is ideological. We want to improve the services for passengers.

Railways Funding and HS2

Geraint Davies: How much funding his Department plans to provide for railways in (a) Wales and (b) England during the remaining HS2 construction period.

Huw Merriman: Good morning, Mr Speaker. The HS2 construction period extends beyond the horizon of the five-year funding cycles for Network Rail. When it comes to the existing railway, £44 billion has been committed from 2024 to 2029—a 4% real terms increase on maintenance and renewals to keep the railway running safely and reliably.

Geraint Davies: The Minister is aware of the compelling case for Wales to get its population share of HS2, which is £5 billion—particularly as Scotland has had its share—in the light of years of under-investment. He will also be aware that Transport for Wales has worked up £2.5 billion of projects to be delivered in the next 10 to 15 years. Will he commit his officials to working with Transport for Wales to look at joint working and joint funding to move ahead together, so that we can deliver higher productivity, move towards net zero and strengthen the Union? Can we meet in due course to discuss progress?

Huw Merriman: I very much enjoyed the meeting I had with the hon. Member and Professor Mark Barry in January. In regard to the point he makes about HS2, the UK Department for Transport is funded to spend money on heavy rail infrastructure in Wales, rather than the Welsh Government receiving Barnett-based funding. Conversely, the Scottish Government and the Northern Ireland Executive receive Barnett-based funding, but rail in Scotland and Northern Ireland does not benefit from any UK Department for Transport spending. When it comes to the enhancement portfolio, which we are looking to publish shortly, we very much expect to be working with our partners across Wales, and I continue to make myself available to meet the hon. Member to hear his ideas.

Andrew Bridgen: Can the Minister confirm what plans he has for improving the midland main line and reopening the Ivanhoe line through North West Leicestershire? Has his Department done a cost-benefit analysis of full electrification of the midlands main line, and how does he think that might compare with the cost-benefits of the eastern leg of HS2, which is set to run from Birmingham to East Midlands Parkway?

Huw Merriman: The hon. Member makes the point and it is important that we link those projects together so that the full benefits of HS2 drive the enhancements we make to the existing railway, and indeed vice versa. I am happy to write to him to set out further details with regard to the projects he has mentioned.

HS2: Preventing Fraud

Andrea Leadsom: What steps the Government are taking to prevent fraud associated with HS2; and if he will make a statement.

Huw Merriman: The Department requires HS2 Ltd to adopt and implement policies and practices to guard against fraud. HS2 Ltd has an experienced counter-fraud team to protect taxpayer funds against the threats of fraud, bribery, corruption and other malpractice. HS2 Ltd further works with the Department, the Public Sector Fraud Authority, law enforcement and supply chain partners to ensure that Government counter-fraud standards are met or exceeded.

Andrea Leadsom: My constituents in South Northamptonshire remain angry and disillusioned about not just the way that their reasonable requests for proper mitigation and compensation are ignored and  delayed by HS2, but the huge amount of waste they see daily. I would like the Minister to expand on how, with costs spiralling out of control, he will deliver good value for taxpayers’ money.

Huw Merriman: I have every sympathy with the constituents of my right hon. Friend and others on the line of route. There is disruption, but we seek to minimise and mitigate it. I am aware of the area she represents as my family live close by. I have a meeting with her and officials next week to go through cases she has. I would just say that HS2 will really deliver for this country: 30,000 people employed; 2,500 businesses supporting HS2; 97% of that supply chain in the UK. There are impacts, but there will also be great delivery once the line is built.

Andrew Gwynne: As the Minister will know, plans for the construction of HS2 to Manchester involve the severing and mothballing of the Metrolink line through my constituency to Ashton-under-Lyne. We have put a sensible counter-proposal to HS2 to keep that line open and provide a new depot for the maintenance and storage of the trams. HS2 says that it will cost so much money to do that—more than the cost of installing the entire Metrolink line in the first place—that it cannot be done. What actual oversight is there of the fantasy figures coming out of HS2?

Huw Merriman: There is great oversight of the figures. It relates to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Northamptonshire (Dame Andrea Leadsom). A report is put out every six months to show the transparency and we do bear down on costs. With regard to the matter mentioned by the hon. Member, I have been to Manchester and heard about the issues there. The problem is that the current two depots are on one side; it would actually make more sense, when the line is built, for them to be on either side. I know that officials from HS2 and the Department for Transport are in discussions with the team in Greater Manchester. The matter is before the Bill Committee, so it would not be appropriate for me to go into further detail.

Southeastern Railway

Clive Efford: What assessment he has made of the adequacy of the performance of Southeastern Railway since its timetable change on 11 December 2022.

Huw Merriman: Southeastern’s new timetable was designed to improve resilience. The operator faced some initial challenges introducing the new timetable, so established a joint taskforce with Network Rail to identify and resolve issues. Changes have already been made, including adding services and carriages where required and we are already seeing an improvement. The taskforce will continue to monitor performance and make changes as required.

Clive Efford: I am grateful for the Minister’s answer and for his letter of the 28th of last month, but, as he will know, that very evening, there was yet another dangerous incident at London Bridge due to overcrowding. On 7 February, I was on a train which, due to delayed  trains, was so overcrowded that someone fainted in my carriage. The system has been cut back to the point where there is no slack in it. Whenever there is a delay, there is dangerous overcrowding. The Minister has to address that before something serious happens to an individual. We were told that there would be no delays when the new system was brought in, because it would be so efficient that we would not have any of that congestion, but it has been worse. The Minister has to face up to that. He gave Southeastern permission to do that. We need to change the timetable.

Huw Merriman: The hon. Member will be receiving another letter from me this morning, because I have always said that I would listen, as did the Secretary of State, and that we would try to make improvements as the case was demonstrated. I want to thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Bexleyheath and Crayford (Sir David Evennett) and my hon. Friend the Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr French), who have met me and the Secretary of State to make the case for their constituents. I can confirm that we have agreed to the reinstatement of a direct off-peak service to Charing Cross on the Bexleyheath line, which will run hourly, Monday to Saturday. This service will be in addition to the current timetable, meaning a total of 309 services will operate each week direct to and from Charing Cross on this line. I hope the hon. Member will welcome that good news.

Bob Neill: If the Minister had been on the 8.27 from Chislehurst today, he would not have seen very much by way of improvements, that is for sure, because it ran late, as ever. Is not the problem that, because of the loss of direct services on the Hayes line into Charing Cross and equally the cutback in direct services on the north Kent line into Cannon Street, unsustainable numbers of people are having to change trains at London Bridge? I have seen the chaos there, and I have actually stood outside the station, because it has had to be closed on occasions. It is not safe, Minister. At some point, somebody will get injured or killed as a result of this.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order.

Bob Neill: Will the Minister please get officials to sit down with south-east London MPs and get this sorted out?

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Sir Robert, do not tempt my patience. Come on, Minister.

Huw Merriman: Of course, I am very sorry about that issue. As my hon. Friend points out, there was a points failure, which caused issues in terms of crowd controls at London Bridge. I have spoken to Network Rail and it is looking to work with Transport for London, which of course has experience of overcrowded tubes, and we will learn lessons from that. However, I also hope that he will have heard about the changes we are making. The timetable change was brought in to try to add more resilience and to reduce cancellations, but we have got issues with Network Rail infrastructure and of course we have industrial action. All those matters I seek to resolve.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Minister.

Tan Dhesi: First, may I pay my respects following the tragic rail crash in Greece? I am sure that the thoughts and prayers of the whole House will be with our Greek friends.
Last year, the Minister oversaw timetable changes on Southeastern routes, but the Government refused to consult on those changes because they did not want to listen to passengers. In a parliamentary debate in December, secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford), I and indeed hon. Members from across the House warned the Minister that the upcoming changes and cancellations of Southeastern routes would be bad for passengers and would lead to overcrowding, but he did not listen. Now that these changes have caused the predictable chaos he was warned about, will the Minister finally listen and end the misery this Government are inflicting upon Southeastern passengers?

Huw Merriman: That is patently not the case, because during that debate I made it quite clear that consultations would be better than they had been. I also made it quite clear that I would listen and, if the case were made to change the timetable, I would do so. This morning—obviously, earlier than the lines that have been written—we announced that these changes had been made. In fact, the very first individuals to be made aware of that were the MPs. They have had that information first; it is important to me that they receive that information first. We will continue to listen and learn. We had to make savings on Southeastern, and £10 million was taken off. The savings are because season tickets collapsed to 32% of pre-covid levels. If the hon. Member is pledging to fund the railway no matter what and make no changes—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Minister, I think we have got the message. Can I just say to Members that this is about equality in going from one side to the other? I know it is important, and I am sure if you catch my eye during topicals you may have a chance of getting in then, but do not glare at me because I am trying to be politically right for both sides.

John Spellar: Keynes said, “When the facts change, I change my mind.” It is quite clear that patterns of business travel have changed dramatically post covid, yet when I asked the Minister this week about the balance between first class and standard class travel in the north and the midlands, not only did he not know, but he did not even seem to be interested. Will the Minister now, with these changing business patterns, re-examine the case for HS2, or is he just frightened of the answer?

Huw Merriman: I am not frightened of the answer at all. I am an advocate for HS2 because, as I have mentioned, it will level up the country, interconnect our great cities, reduce the time for a train to Manchester by 54 minutes to one hour and 11 minutes, and deliver not just jobs for this country, but jobs we can export to other high-speed rail lines across the world.

Rolling Stock Manufacturing: North-east England

Sharon Hodgson: What recent assessment he has made with Cabinet colleagues of the future viability of rolling stock manufacturing in the north-east.

Huw Merriman: Me again, Mr Speaker.
The Government recognise the importance of the rolling stock supply chain on both the national and local economies. Since 2010, over 5,300 vehicles ordered by train operators in the UK have been assembled at manufacturing facilities across the country, reflecting in the region of £10.6 billion on orders for rolling stock built in the UK since 2010.

Sharon Hodgson: As we have already heard this morning, Hitachi Rail is one of the anchors of north-east manufacturing expertise and innovation, supporting hundreds of jobs at the Newton Aycliffe site and thousands more in the wider supply chain, and it is incredible that the north-east will have a role in manufacturing the UK’s very first high speed trains for HS2. However, in the interim will the Minister now provide urgent clarity on the short-term rolling stock pipeline so that this exemplar of north-east manufacturing continues to support regional and economic growth long into the future?

Huw Merriman: I was up in the north-east, in Tyne and Wear, last week, where it was a pleasure to meet the Tyne and Wear Metro Nexus team as they unveiled their new Class 555 trains, and I wish them well in that endeavour. Hitachi was one of the bidders for that and of course over 1,000 carriages have been built at the Newton Aycliffe plant, including orders for Great Western, TransPennine Express, East Midlands Railway and West Coast. I will happily write to the hon. Lady to give her the answer she seeks, but I assure her that I am supportive of all our great railway manufacturers in this country.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the shadow Secretary of State.

Louise Haigh: Last month I was delighted to visit the Hitachi Rail manufacturing facility in Newton Aycliffe, where 800 highly skilled employees are delivering world-class manufacturing excellence. They told me that they need certainty from the Government, but briefings, leaks and rumour about the future of HS2 are pouring out of this Department. Will the Minister categorically deny that his Department is working on any plans that would slash what is left of the eastern leg and leave Yorkshire and the north-east permanently entirely cut off by cutting high-speed platforms at Euston?

Huw Merriman: I hope I made it clear, in answer to one of the hon. Member’s colleagues who was not as supportive of HS2 as I am, that we are absolutely committed to delivering HS2 trains from London to Manchester and going over to the east as well, but of course we have to look at cost pressures. It is absolutely right that HS2 focuses on costs; that should be expected of the Government and the taxpayer. We will continue to do so, but I can tell the hon. Member that I am absolutely committed, as are the Secretary of State and the entire Department, to delivering HS2 and the benefits for this country.

Topical Questions

Chi Onwurah: If he will make a statement on his departmental responsibilities.

Mark Harper: It may interest the House to know that today the Government are investing £25 million to roll out 170 zero- emission buses on to our streets. They are built in Northern Ireland by Wrightbus, which I visited just a few weeks ago, and these buses will benefit passengers and communities across Yorkshire, Norfolk and Hampshire, showing how we are pulling together as a Union to decarbonise transport. We have had a lot of conversations about buses, so it is also worth noting that we have extended the bus recovery grant and the popular £2 fare cap, renewing our commitment to the bus sector, getting more passengers on board and helping the public with the cost of living.

Chi Onwurah: In Newcastle, we need reliable, affordable and accessible bus services, but all we get is lame excuses and short-term sticking plasters. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the bus recovery grant will be extended past June, and when will he make the much-promised, long overdue payment of £163 million to Transport North East so that it can improve services?

Mark Harper: We have extended the bus recovery grant for a further quarter and extended the £2 fare cap, which has been very popular. We are currently working on our plans subsequent to June, but the hon. Member will know that we work very closely with devolved Metro Mayors across the country to devolve central Government funding to them so that they can make the right decisions for their local areas, and we will make further announcements in due course.

Andrew Jones: Two weeks ago, I met members of Harrogate Youth Council, who are running an anti-harassment campaign focusing on public transport. Will my hon. Friend tell me what steps the Government are taking to keep people, in particular young people, safe on our buses and trains?

Huw Merriman: I welcome the work of the Harrogate Youth Council. They should be aware that 95% of buses have CCTV. The trains I mentioned coming up to Tyne and Wear have been designed to contain and reduce antisocial behaviour. What I would really love to do is take the Harrogate Youth Council’s ideas and, when I meet the British Transport police chief constable next week, try to match them and feed back to my hon. Friend.

Chris Bryant: I am feeling very, very let down. I like at least two of the Government Ministers—

Louise Haigh: Name them!

Chris Bryant: That would be unfair. Maybe three, even. But they keep offering a meeting to bring together the Welsh Government, the British Government and the local authorities that are interested in the Rhondda tunnel. This has been going on forever and I never, ever get that meeting. When is it going to happen?

Huw Merriman: I hope I am not the one the hon. Gentleman does not like. I can assure him that if he checks his box, he will find an invitation from the roads  Minister, the Minister responsible for this at the Department for Transport, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North West Durham (Mr Holden), to meet him and the team from Wales. I hope that he will then be very happy indeed and that we meet his expectations.

Lindsay Hoyle: Will somebody please just go and look at this tunnel!

Laurence Robertson: While it is obviously right to develop other forms of transport, does the Secretary of State agree with me that in rural areas in particular the car is here to stay? Is it not therefore very important that we have adequate road infrastructure in place before any sizeable developments are begun?

Mark Harper: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. About 60% of journeys are made by car, and the car remains incredibly important, particularly in rural areas like his and mine in Gloucestershire. Almost half the Government’s budget for investing in the strategic road network is for renewing, maintaining and operating existing network, but he makes a very good point about ensuring that, as we develop communities and businesses, the road infrastructure is adequate for those developments. I have noted his point carefully and will discuss it with the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities in due course.

Peter Dowd: I am sure the Secretary of State will agree that the safety of hundreds of primary schoolchildren and parents who are unable to use the demolished footbridge at the Park Lane junction on the dangerous A5036, as a result of a lorry collision, is paramount. Will he therefore instruct National Highways to stop its bureaucratic stalling and replace it as a matter of urgency?

Richard Holden: I would be delighted to. I speak to National Highways on a regular basis. I will raise the hon. Gentleman’s point and write to him.

Christopher Chope: National Highways has a statutory responsibility in many planning applications, but it seems to be very tardy in coming to conclusions, particularly on the Brocks Pine surf reef application, off the A31, which has now been more than 18 months in indecision. What will be done to ensure that National Highways gets on with it and takes a decision, either yes or no?

Richard Holden: National Highways has been working with the applicant and its transport consultants to resolve questions on this development. The applicant has not yet provided National Highways with the information it needs to enable it to provide a recommendation. I will write to him when it does so.

Geraint Davies: In light of the Windsor framework, which will provide more favourable economic conditions for trading in Northern Ireland, will the Secretary of State consider providing more transport infrastructure in Wales to mitigate that and to help Wales take advantage of more trade into Northern Ireland and into the single market via Ireland or Northern Ireland?

Richard Holden: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman welcomes the Windsor framework, which is a fantastic agreement with the European Union to resolve the issues that resulted from the Northern Ireland protocol. I hope every Member of this House will welcome it in due course when they have had time to study it. His point about Wales was, I think, answered by the rail Minister, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman). We work very closely with the Welsh Government. We are looking at improvements in the rail network enhancement plan and will make announcements in due course.

Sheryll Murray: Many people in England pay an additional road tax to cross a river, be it the Humber, the Thames, the Tyne, the Mersey, the Trent, the Itchen or the Tamar. In 2020, a freedom of information request revealed that National Highways is responsible for maintaining 9,392 road bridges already. Will the Department investigate bringing all crossings on main routes under National Highways control?

Richard Holden: My hon. Friend is a champion for the people of Cornwall. The Department has no plans to introduce tolls anywhere else on the strategic road network, which is a long-standing Government policy. The provision, upkeep and operation of significant crossings is funded by toll incomes at local level, but as always, I would be happy to meet her to discuss that specific local issue.

Mohammad Yasin: A number of my constituents are sick with stress, trapped in blighted homes with a pressing need to sell, but cannot do so as a result of the East West Rail preferred route announcement three years ago. Every day that the DFT dithers and delays announcing the route is another day of misery for my constituents. Will the Minister stop playing with people’s lives, put a support package in place and get that handful of cases sorted out today?

Huw Merriman: I am happy to meet the hon. Member. I recently had a tour around both the options for East West Rail as it comes into Cambridge. I know that he has issues with residents with properties on the line of route, and I am happy to discuss those cases with him so that I can better advise him and his constituents on how they can get help.

Chris Loder: Could the rail Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), tell me the benefits that my constituents will see with the recent award of the South Western Railway contract to FirstGroup and MTR? I would be particularly keen to understand whether the accessible footbridge for Dorchester South station is contained within it.

Huw Merriman: On my hon. Friend’s second point, Dorchester South station is one of 300 applications for the Access For All tranche, which will be announced later this year. I assure him that South Western Railway passengers will gain benefits from the continuity of the service provider, including better real-time information to passengers and other changes that we have in mind to improve the passenger experience. I look forward to working with him on this matter.

Margaret Ferrier: Will the Secretary of State or one of his Ministers meet me to discuss the increased restrictions on the movement of special types of general orders and abnormal loads, which are having a hugely detrimental effect on companies such as Cadzow Heavy Haulage in Blantyre?

Richard Holden: Yes.

Alicia Kearns: The Minister and I have spoken almost daily about the Melton bypass. Could he update me on his conversations with the Treasury about that? I also thank the Government for the five upgrades that they have delivered to the A1, where work has now started.

Richard Holden: I am delighted that my hon. Friend is pleased with the work that we are doing. She has been a real champion of it and has never failed to bend my ear at every opportunity. I hope to make a further announcement on this matter shortly.

Vicky Foxcroft: I am worried that the Minister did not listen to concerns about the Southeastern timetable from both sides of the House. I travel from St Johns and every single day there are delays and overcrowding. The timetable changes were not consulted on. It is good that Ministers announced some changes, but why not reverse them all and do the right thing? The service was better before.

Huw Merriman: I reiterate that when season tickets are reduced by the figures that we have seen—32% compared with pre-covid levels—we have to make changes to add more resilience, to ensure that trains do not have to cross lines, to reduce cancellations and to improve punctuality. I am meeting the hon. Member and her rail service groups because I do listen and, as has been reflected today, I will make changes where they make sense.

Jason McCartney: My hard-pressed constituents are still suffering a totally unacceptable number of cancelled rail services by TransPennine Express every morning—just yesterday from Huddersfield, the 6.49, the 7.01, the 7.30, and the 7.46. How on earth are my constituents expected to get to work, school, college or university? When will TransPennine Express get a grip and when will we strip them of the franchise?

Huw Merriman: As the Secretary of State made clear, we should all try to fix the systemic problems that exist on the route. Let me give one example: at the moment, when a driver calls in sick—and there are sickness rates of 14%—another driver will cover it only if they are working under rest day working. However, the unions will not agree to rest day working, so the train gets cancelled. If hon. Members are interested in fixing these issues, they should look at the parties responsible and not just at the operator.

John Cryer: Further to Question 4, the Minister will be aware of plans to significantly increase flights in and out of London City airport over my constituency and many others in east and south London. Can he assure the House that a  decision on the matter will not be made while the Civil Aviation Authority’s survey of noise pollution is still being conducted?

Jesse Norman: I obviously cannot comment on the situation at the moment, but the hon. Gentleman’s point is well made. If he wishes to take the matter up with the aviation Minister, I am sure that she would welcome it.

Chris Green: What is the Minister doing to ensure there is better information sharing among councils to deliver safer taxi and private hire services across the country?

Richard Holden: My hon. Friend will know that his local council, Bolton, is one of the best at information sharing with respect to taxi driving licences across the country. I hope that councils such as Birmingham, Manchester, Sefton, Newcastle and Liverpool will get on board with the voluntary scheme before the mandatory element kicks in soon, because we should not leave people at risk on our services.

Abena Oppong-Asare: When I met the Minister, he gave me assurances that Southeastern timetables would improve in Erith and Thamesmead. He mentioned this morning that all south-east London MPs had received an update. I am one of the MPs who has not. There is an impact on my constituency, so I would like to know why I have not received that update. My hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) has kindly shown me the letter, which partially addresses some of the issues with off-peak services on the Bexley line, but does not address over- crowding across the board, most of which occurs during peak times. Will the Minister look into the matter urgently?

Huw Merriman: The email with the letter will have been sent to four hon. Members; the hon. Lady is one of them. If it has not yet got through, I suspect that that is because of a systems issue rather than anything else, but as soon as I leave the Chamber I will make sure that she gets it. I make the point again that I am a user of Southeastern and of London Bridge, and I am aware of the issues. We will continue to reflect, adapt and change where the case is made—I assure the hon. Lady of that.

Mark Fletcher: The roads Minister is aware of my campaign to upgrade junctions 28 and 29 of the M1. Will he commit to visiting both junctions and meeting local stakeholders?

Richard Holden: I would be absolutely delighted: I regularly drive on that road and it almost feels as if I have been meeting them, given the slowness of the traffic, particularly at junction 28. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend and other hon. Members in the area to discuss the matter further.

Clive Betts: I do not know whether the Minister is aware of the plans being developed at the University of Sheffield’s advanced manufacturing research centre, with Boeing, to research and potentially to manufacture ultra-lightweight materials for planes. If not, would he like to visit Sheffield to meet  the relevant parties and better inform himself of a development that could be really exciting not just for Sheffield, but for the whole UK?

Jesse Norman: I am sure that the aviation Minister in the Lords will be interested. I certainly have an interest, as the former aviation Minister at the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy who was responsible for the Aerospace Technology Institute. Let me assure the hon. Gentleman of my interest in the matter, and let us take it up further outside the House.

Siobhan Baillie: I wish Ministers had seen me trying to drag a baby, a toddler and a buggy up and down the steps at Stroud station as part of my campaign for accessibility measures. I am able-bodied, so it is even more difficult for people with disabilities and elderly people. Will the Secretary of State meet me to discuss the Access for All scheme so that I can go back to Great Western Railway and give an update?

Mark Harper: I am grateful for that question from my constituency neighbour across the River Severn. We have spent £900 million on Access for All accessibility upgrades. I would be delighted to meet my hon. Friend to discuss her specific proposals for Stroud station.

Ian Paisley Jnr: May I place on the record my thanks and gratitude to the Department, and to the Secretary of State in particular, for his visit to Wrightbus and for this morning’s announcement of more than £25 million of investment in jobs there? Those jobs will create opportunities for transport in Norfolk, Yorkshire, Portsmouth, Hampshire and York. What a fantastic announcement—I congratulate him on that wonderful news. We have the best product being made by the best workers for everyone across the United Kingdom.

Mark Harper: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments. I hugely enjoyed my visit last month to Wrightbus, a very impressive company that has grown tremendously over the last few years and is both developing electric buses and working on hydrogen developments. It is fulfilling part of our wish to decarbonise the transport network, and it is also fantastic to see it demonstrating the importance of our Union in delivering on our net zero commitments.

James Daly: I thank the Minister for his recent visit to my constituency. Does he agree that the proposal to invest £100 million in a new bus and tram interchange for Bury town centre is an excellent example of the way in which transport investment can level up all parts of the country?

Richard Holden: My hon. Friend has made a massive case for investment in his constituency, including Bury market and this new transport infrastructure, which is indeed a great example. I will be meeting officials from Transport for Greater Manchester again in the near future, and will keep my hon. Friend up to date on progress. The excellent work that he does in his constituency does not go unnoticed.

Allan Dorans: Thanks to the Scottish Government’s help with the cost of living crisis and their promotion of sustainable public transport, about 23 million free bus journeys have been made by people aged under 22 across Scotland. That has undoubtedly benefited not only those young people and their pockets, but the environment. What plans does the Minister have to replicate this successful Scottish Government policy in England?

Richard Holden: All the bus service investment plans across the country contain individual plans tailored for the regions, and that includes the provision of youth services. The British Government are doing it on a tailored basis in accordance with local need. That is where I think those decisions should be taken.

Clive Efford: On a point of order, Mr Speaker.

Lindsay Hoyle: Is it relevant to the questions?

Clive Efford: Yes, Mr Speaker. In his answer to me, the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman) mentioned that he was sending a letter to Members who were affected by the changes that he had announced. When I looked at my emails later, I noted that that communication had been sent at the exact moment I sat down after asking my question, which denied me the opportunity to quiz the Minister further about his announcement. While the off-peak services to Charing Cross are welcome, he has not dealt with the overcrowding at peak times. I do not know how I can obtain redress for this, Mr Speaker, but at least I have put it on the record.

Lindsay Hoyle: Does the Minister want to respond?

Huw Merriman: Further to that point of order, Mr Speaker. I have heard what the hon. Member has said, and I shall be happy to meet him if he wants to discuss the matter further. However, I feel pleased that I have been able both to write to him and to address his concerns in the Chamber.

Business of the House

Thangam Debbonaire: Will the Leader of the House give us the forthcoming business?

Penny Mordaunt: The business for the week commencing 6 March will include the following:
Monday 6 March—Committee of the whole House and remaining stages of the Social Security (Additional Payments) (No.2) Bill, followed by consideration of Lords amendments to the Genetic Technology (Precision Breeding) Bill.
Tuesday 7 March—Consideration of Lords amendments to the Public Order Bill, followed by a motion to approve the draft Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement (England and Wales and Scotland) Regulations 2023, followed by a motion to approve the Non-Domestic Alternative Fuel Payment Pass-through Requirement and Amendment Regulations 2023.
Wednesday 8 March—Estimates day. There will be debates on estimates relating to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, in so far as it relates to adult social care; and the Department for Education, in so far as it relates to childcare and early years. At 7 pm the House will be asked to agree all outstanding estimates.
Thursday 9 March—Proceedings on the Supply and Appropriation (Anticipation and Adjustments) Bill, followed by a general debate on International Women’s Day, followed by a general debate on brain tumour research funding. The subjects for these debates were determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
Friday 10 March—The House will not be sitting.
The provisional business for the week commencing 13 March includes the following:
Monday 13 March—Business to be determined by the Backbench Business Committee.
I also remind colleagues that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will deliver his Budget statement on Wednesday 15 March.

Thangam Debbonaire: I thank the Leader of the House for the forthcoming business.
Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister announced proposals for a public advocate to act on behalf of the victims and the bereaved after public disasters like Hillsborough, the Manchester Arena bombing and Grenfell, but I am afraid that, unlike the proposal of my right hon. Friend the Member for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle), the public advocate will have no independence, there will be no data controller and they will not act only at the behest of families—they will effectively be directed by the Secretary of State. Anyone who has been following the infected blood scandal, for example, knows that a public advocate has to be truly independent. It should have been clear to the Deputy Prime Minister from the response to his statement that MPs on both sides of the House want him to go much further. Even Members on his own side raised significant concerns.
If the Deputy Prime Minister will not listen to the Labour Member for Garston and Halewood, who has worked tirelessly, will he listen to his own Back Benchers,  including a former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs May), and beef up his proposals? Will the Leader of the House please make it clear to the Deputy Prime Minister that this House wants justice for victims and the bereaved?
Labour’s successful motion on Tuesday called on the Government to end the 200-year-old non-domiciled tax status, which costs taxpayers £3.2 billion a year. The next Labour Government will end that tax dodge and invest part of the money in one of the biggest NHS workforce expansions in history, as part of Labour’s plan to grasp the root cause of the crisis in the NHS. The Leader of the House, the Prime Minister and the rest of the Tory party did not even bother to turn up to vote. They sided with wealthy tax avoiders over NHS patients and staff. I wonder why.
I asked the Leader of the House to explain to her constituents why she did not support a similar Labour motion last year. Unsurprisingly, she did not answer at business questions then, so perhaps she will have a go now. Why, in January alone, did more than 5,500 of her constituents and 7,000 of mine have to wait more than two weeks to see a general practitioner? If she will not admit the sorry state to which the Tories have brought the NHS, may I suggest that she at least goes back to the Cabinet to demand that the Government respect the will of this House and implement Labour’s plan to invest in the NHS workforce?
After that, we set out our plan to get Britain back to work. Recent employment support schemes have underperformed and underspent. As a result, the number of economically inactive people is higher than before the pandemic. What will the Government do about it? Labour is calling for the reform of disability benefit assessments, targeted help for people over 50 and those who have long-term ill health, and the devolution of employment support to local areas. Who could disagree with that? Well, not some Tory Back Benchers. The hon. Member for Mansfield (Ben Bradley), the leader of Nottinghamshire County Council, has said as much:
“Fixing economic inactivity needs a radical pro-devolution mindset.”
That is all part of Labour’s plan to grow the economy and to boost public finances and household incomes. Does the Leader of the House also agree with Labour? If not, where is the Government’s plan?
The right hon. Lady knows the importance I place on our role as scrutinisers. That includes timely and good-quality answers to written parliamentary questions. Why, to take one example, cannot my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth), the shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, get answers on whether the Government’s existing policies are even making a difference? He has asked, among many other questions: how many people secure a job after taking part in the sector-based work academy programme? How much funding is allocated to each jobcentre? How many universal credit claimants are undertaking training or education that counts towards their work-related requirements? The list of unanswered questions goes on.
Perhaps the Leader of the House could give this a go, because responses such as “This information is not available,” “The information is not collated,” and, “No such specific assessment has been made,” are very familiar to Members on both sides of the House, but they are  not good enough. Will she remind Ministers that they need to answer the questions they are asked? If Ministers in the Department for Work and Pensions are not confident about their policies, perhaps they ought to clear their desks and make way for Labour’s brilliant Work and Pensions team, which has a bold plan to get Britain back to work.
I end with another simple request. After the ministerial merry-go-round of the last few years, I might have thought the Minister for the Cabinet Office would be a dab hand at updating the list of ministerial responsibilities. It is essential that MPs, staff and our constituents have a clear understanding of who is responsible for what and how best to contact them. Following the latest reshuffle and Whitehall restructuring, I asked the Cabinet Office for an update, and I was told that one will be published in due course. That was more than 10 days ago. Will the Leader of the House give the Minister for the Cabinet Office a nudge? “In due course.” “Soon.” “Before too long.” That sort of language sums up the Tories’ answers to everything. “Just wait a little longer and it will all be okay,” is what they seem to think. We have had 13 years of this stuff. The British people should not have to wait longer. It is time for a fresh start and a Labour Government.

Penny Mordaunt: First, let me take this opportunity to place on the record, as I have been unable to do so this week, the fact that my thoughts and prayers are with all those affected by the appalling train accident in Greece. I know that all Members would want to join me in that. [Hon. Members: “Hear, hear.”]
I will run through the questions that the hon. Lady has asked me. With regard to the Deputy Prime Minister, there was a statement, in which he would have heard what Members have said and listened to their concerns. However, I will be happy to write to him and make sure that he knows that she has raised the matter this week.
As for the rhetoric we have had from Labour on national missions, I just say to the hon. Lady that a national mission for this country should be the strength of our NHS. If she really wants to get all minds working on that, across all sectors—public, private, philanthropic and charitable—just repeating the rhetoric that large swathes of the population do not care about the NHS is not helpful. We care very much about the NHS. Our record on investment speaks for itself, and she will know that a huge amount of work is ongoing to deal with the very real problem of backlogs because of the pandemic.
The hon. Lady could have spoken about the 92 community diagnostic centres that are open, with diagnostics being one of the main reasons why we still have those waiting list backlogs. She will know that we have massively increased access to GP appointments, with their number per day having increased by 120,000 since this time last year. That is due to the hard work of healthcare professionals, the modernisation that has been adopted, and the hard work of the Secretary of State and his team. She could acknowledge that and move the debate on from some rather outdated rhetoric. I will encourage Labour to do that at every business questions, in all other areas as well.
The hon. Lady invites comparison between the work of the Department for Work and Pensions now and the record of that Department under the last Labour Government, and indeed of the whole Government. I just remind her that we have got 4 million additional  people into the workplace, with 2 million being women and 1 million being disabled people who would not otherwise have had those opportunities to work.
I welcome the hon. Lady’s gentle encouragement about the performance of Whitehall Departments. She knows that I take this matter very seriously. I have had permanent secretaries come to see me in my office, particularly, in recent times, the permanent secretary at the Home Office. She will know that we have achieved on the backlog on those questions and the casework that is so important to us in this place—70,000 more pieces of correspondence have been dealt with since this matter was raised in this House. Both Lord True, the Leader of the House of Lords, and I will be seeing all permanent secretaries next week, and we have a list of suggestions on how things can be improved. I will always want Members of this House to have timely access to information, and I shall continue to operate on that basis.

William Wragg: As my right hon. Friend will know, the Public Administration and Constitutional Affairs Committee is a warm and friendly ensemble of parliamentarians, which Ministers enjoy appearing before. I pay tribute to her for doing so, and to all current Cabinet Office Ministers, but is she aware that sometimes our cordial invitation falls on deaf ears when the Ministers concerned are in different Departments but there are matter of interest to our Committee and this House? While she is writing down her little list, may I ask her to add to it the need to remind her colleagues on the Treasury Bench that they should put scrutiny before this House as the foremost obligation in their in-trays?
With your indulgence, Mr Speaker, may I also—to prove that I am in a good and charitable mood this morning—wish my right hon. Friend a very happy birthday for this weekend? It would be ungallant of me to say the age but, frankly, I cannot believe it.

Penny Mordaunt: I am the grand old age of twenty-thirty this weekend. I thank my hon. Friend for that very kind remark. He will know that, having been a frequent flyer before his Committee, I take what he says very seriously. I shall certainly ensure that any Secretary of State whom he has invited to give evidence is encouraged to do so.

Lindsay Hoyle: I call the SNP spokesperson.

Deidre Brock: I am glad to see the Leader of the House in her place today—she has not been tempted away to the seaside, I believe, with her colleagues on their away day. Many happy returns for the weekend as well.
It is perhaps no surprise that the Prime Minister scheduled the away day on a business day. Let us face it, folk are starting to notice that there is an extremely light hand on the Government’s legislative tiller these days. Last night, again, business finished early, and it is happening more often despite the big backlog of Bills, along with last-minute filler debates. It surely exposes the Government as not being in control of their agenda or their Back Benchers.
This Parliament is almost unique in the world for the Government being able to control almost all the business of the House. The Leader of the House might point to Backbench or Opposition Day debates, but the Government  can and do unilaterally decide to shift those debates as they see fit. Many other Parliaments have cross-party bureaux or corporate bodies that determine business, so why not this place? Why not explore an amendable and votable business statement, which would mean that Back Benchers from all parties could have some say in the final decisions, and that business would therefore reflect the majority view? If the Government cannot do the job, I am sure that the rest of the House would gladly take it on. Yes, even the SNP, as we work under the constraints of this place—before we leave for our independent Scotland.
The Leader of the House gave a speech yesterday entitled “Trust in Britain”—a bold heading these days. I agreed with quite a few of her points, including on the importance of freedom, for example, even while I marvelled at her ability to separate her Government and her party from blame for the problems that they have caused. She acknowledged that Parliaments are struggling to be effective and relevant in the modern world. Will she take up the challenge to reform, shake up and place her stamp on this issue? I would recommend the report from University College London’s constitution unit, called “Taking back control”—she would like it.
Secondly, there is some good news about Scotland, which I am sure the Leader of the House will welcome. Analysis by the Institute for Fiscal Studies shows that the Scottish Government’s recent Budget means that the poorest 10% of Scottish families are set to be £580 a year better off than their counterparts in England and Wales. Can we have a debate on what the UK Government can learn from Scotland on protecting the most vulnerable? Surely they are prepared to learn from others on this issue.
Finally, I have a request for the Leader of the House, who likes to use these weekly important business questions —ostensibly about the conduct of her own Government —to answer the questions that she is asked rather than use it purely as a pulpit to attack other democratically elected Governments across the UK. She really needs to understand that the purpose of her being here is to answer for her own Government’s actions, even if that is, understandably, depressing for her.

Penny Mordaunt: Mr Speaker, I want it to be placed on record that the hon. Lady has asked me three questions, and I anticipate that I may have more questions from her honourable colleagues. As a consequence, I would like it placed on record that my space is no longer safe, but I will soldier on. May I just welcome the SNP’s U-turn on allowing media access to their leadership contest hustings and not restricting the candidates to just one question.
Let me turn now, ruthlessly focused, to the three questions that the hon. Lady has asked me this week. She says that we have no business going through the House at the moment. We do have some big Bills to come, and she will know that we have many Bills currently waiting with their lordships. Part of the reason we have not been sitting through the night is that there is quite a lot of agreement in the House about the legislation that the Government are passing. We have had a lot of support from the Opposition Benches, which is partly why she is not having to sit for longer hours and do more.
The hon. Lady asks why we do not have an amendable business statement. I understand why an SNP Member would ask that question, because to the SNP, government is about virtue signalling, dividing nations and political posturing, but government is actually about getting things done and passing legislation. For that reason, we are concerned to control the Floor of the House to ensure that we get done what the people of the country voted for. She and her colleagues might like to try that sometime.
Finally, the hon. Lady said that her constituents were much better off than those in other parts of the UK. I gently point out that her stated policy would make them considerably worse off, because if we ever did have Scottish independence—God forbid—they would immediately lose £2,000 a head, which is the calculated cost of independence to every man, woman and child in Scotland.

Stephen Metcalfe: May we have an urgent statement from the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities on the disaster that is the ultra low emission zone and the discussions that he has had with Mayor Khan about his friends, family and funeral tax, which will have a huge impact on constituencies in outer London and its borders? The expansion of the ULEZ has more to do with raising funds than with improving air quality.

Penny Mordaunt: That is a recurring theme, and the concern is shared by not only Conservative politicians in this place but many politicians of all hues. When Commons business questions sounds more and more like London Assembly questions, something is going badly wrong in London.

Carolyn Harris: Yesterday, at the Women and Equalities Committee, the Minister for Women and Equalities suggested that the recommendations of the Committee’s recent report on the menopause were driven by “a left-wing perspective”. The Committee is cross-party and the report reflected evidence taken from external bodies and individuals. May we have a statement on the appropriateness of a Minister accusing a Select Committee of political bias?

Penny Mordaunt: First, I say to the hon. Lady, who has campaigned so much on that issue, that I do not think that is quite what the Minister said; I think she was talking about an approach to a particular aspect of policy and the Government-run pilot on menopause leave.
On the substance of the policy, however, the hon. Lady knows better than anyone how the Government propose to take the issue forward. We have massive cross-party consensus on it, which is welcome—as a post-menopausal woman, I can tell hon. Members that it is about blinking time. As she knows, the clinical lead who will take it forward will look at what is happening in workplaces and what is good practice, and there will be measures to ensure that all employers are adopting those sensible approaches, which is what we should be focusing on. I want us to continue working cross-party on the issue for women who are yet to go through what we have been through.

Christopher Chope: Can we have an early debate in Government time on how this House can continue to hold the Government to account and scrutinise their actions, when we seem to be in an era of government-by-WhatsApp, which is secretive and irrational, and is denying us our opportunity to hold the Government to account on an evidence basis?

Penny Mordaunt: I would first point out that it is a good week to say that WhatsApp is secretive. This is deeply regrettable, I think. I would just hope that, on such serious matters as the covid inquiry, the Westminster bubble can rise to the challenge of dealing with this in the manner in which it deserves to be approached.
My hon. Friend will know that the Cabinet Office has very clear policies about WhatsApp messages—what can be decided and how those things are captured and stored—and my understanding is that people’s WhatsApp messages have been captured, and are being captured, for that covid inquiry.

Alistair Carmichael: By the time that we come to deal with the alternative fuel payment pass-through requirement regulations on Tuesday, can the Leader of the House assure me that the Minister will be able to answer the very basic questions that my constituents are asking?
The payments started landing last week, and people who did not expect to get them are getting them, while people who are obviously entitled to them are not. I am being inundated with questions, with people asking me whether that money will be clawed back. They will want answers to those questions. They should have had them by now, but will they at least get them next Tuesday?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that important question, and I will ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what he has said today. Anticipating this type of question, I did look at what was on gov.uk, and if one searches for “help with your fuel bills”, there is quite a comprehensive set of answers on there, including for this new scheme. However, if there are specifics that he needs in a timely way, before he has a chance to speak to the Secretary of State directly, I ask him to please let me know, and I will do my best to ensure that he gets answers.

Jason McCartney: Can we have a debate on the blight of litter and fly-tipping, and its effect on our communities? Will the Leader of the House join me in thanking the Huddersfield Litter Bandits, the Holmepride community group, the Honley village volunteers, and many more, who are going out and clearing up other people’s mess? Finally, would she join me in supporting the Kirklees Conservative group, which is proposing longer opening hours at recycling centres to help tackle, in part, the blight of fly-tipping.

Penny Mordaunt: I am very pleased to join my hon. Friend in congratulating all those community organisations that care so much about their local environment. I thank them for all their work. Indeed, my hon. Friend’s Conservative group is absolutely right. Part of solving this problem is to make it easier for people to deposit their rubbish in appropriate places. I wish them good luck, and hope that common sense prevails.

Diana R. Johnson: Although not announced today, I understand that the small-boats legislation will be coming to the House shortly. The Home Affairs Committee carried out a two-year inquiry into the small-boats issue and made a number of recommendations, some of which the Government are now taking up, including dealing with the asylum backlog. We also visited northern France in January to look at what was happening on the ground.
May I suggest to the Leader of the House that it might be helpful if the Home Affairs Committee did some pre-legislative scrutiny of the small-boats legislation? We want to ensure that the Bill is properly considered, looking at the evidence, as should happen with all Bills coming before this House. It might also help to avoid further legislation having to be brought forward again to deal with the same problem.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the right hon. Lady for raising that and for illustrating the value of the work that Select Committees do in this place. A huge amount of work and thinking has been done, and I know that the Home Office will have looked at all those pieces of work in arriving at its conclusions. She will know that I will announce business in the usual way, but I would also just say to her that, as well as getting the Bill right—this is such an important matter for everyone in this country —we also need to get it done swiftly. I hope that she will look at the Bill and be content that it does the right things. I urge all Members of this House to pass it swiftly —with scrutiny, and with improvements, if necessary—when it arrives here.

Andrew Bridgen: Further to that issue, in a week when we are told that the asylum applications of thousands of illegal economic migrants will be fast tracked, and when yet another hotel in my constituency has been taken to house illegal entrants to the UK, will the Leader of the House please confirm when we will get a chance to fast-track legislation that deters illegal entry to the UK by providing that anyone who arrives here illegally does not get a passport, and anyone arriving from a safe third country is immediately sent back there? I assure my right hon. Friend that, such is the appetite on the Conservative Benches, we would sit until any hour on any day to accommodate any timetable she may have to deal with this urgent matter.

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Gentleman knows that we will bring forward a Bill that will do precisely as he asks. I am glad that we have it on record that he will support the Government.

Geraint Davies: The Leader of the House may be aware of an article in yesterday’s Financial Times about the funding cliff edge faced by universities across the United Kingdom at the end of structural funding in March, which will end 166 projects. In Swansea, we will be looking at a loss of 24 projects and 150 jobs, and she had promised to raise that issue with the Secretary of State for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, although there have been a couple of BEIS Secretaries since then. As that funding is desperately important for green growth—and shared prosperity funding goes to local authorities rather than to universities—will she urgently raise this matter with  Cabinet colleagues, particularly those from the Treasury, ahead of the Budget, so that we can get the green growth research and development that we need to make Britain strong again?

Penny Mordaunt: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has already raised that with the Chancellor but—belt and braces—I shall make sure that the Chancellor has heard him.

James Sunderland: I was thrilled to see in the written ministerial statement that the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the Ministry of Defence have jointly agreed to initiate a review into the outputs of Veterans UK. I place on the record my thanks to all Members who supported the survey of the all-party parliamentary group on veterans, including the hon. Members for Barnsley East (Stephanie Peacock) and for Barnsley Central (Dan Jarvis), who are both here. May I also thank the Leader of the House for her support for that work, as well as the Minister for Veterans’ Affairs, my right hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Moor View (Johnny Mercer), who has done some outstanding work on this? The review is a great step forward for our veterans, and I look forward to seeing what it has to say.

Penny Mordaunt: May I thank the hon. Gentleman for the work that he and his APPG have done? The survey had a good response, and it is welcome that it focused on all sorts of experiences, particularly the financial concerns that veterans have. I am glad that he has got his praise of the Office for Veterans’ Affairs and the MOD on the record. This is a step forward: we must ensure that everyone who has served this country is taken care of by this country.

Martin Docherty: While we are celebrating, I welcome the Leader of the House to the twenty-thirties. Will she join me in congratulating Historic Environment Scotland on its announcement of the opening of more than 30 historic and ancient sites in Scotland—notably, the ancient Dumbarton Castle in my constituency—that have been closed owing to the impact of climate change? Can we have a debate about the impact of climate change on our historic environment and on how we can work together across these islands to maintain that historic environment for future generations?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising this issue and for his kind remarks about my imminent birthday. He will know how to apply for a debate in the usual way, but I shall also make sure the Secretary of State has heard what he said.

James Daly: Following the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for South Basildon and East Thurrock (Stephen Metcalfe), will the Leader of the House make time for a debate on clean air charging zones? Parliament must not allow regional Mayors in areas such as Greater Manchester to impose excessive, economically damaging taxation on hard-working people during a cost of living crisis. The clean air zone in Greater Manchester and the ULEZ in London are a tax on jobs and aspiration and clearly not fit for purpose.

Penny Mordaunt: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The focus of this and the reason it is a difficult issue is that we want to make progress on the environment, and we want people to be healthy, but that cannot be done through revenue raising exercises or clobbering households, tradesmen and businesses, which we know is happening. We need innovation and smart policies that allow the acceleration to take up new technologies or buy more recent vehicles, and one way we can do that is allowing businesses to have enough liquidity to invest in this new technology. Taking money off them is not the answer.

Stephanie Peacock: Following the question from the hon. Member for Bracknell (James Sunderland), I also warmly welcome the Government’s statement today on welfare services for veterans in response to our APPG’s veterans survey. Can we have clarification on whether the review will independently analyse the armed forces compensation scheme and war pensions processes? Will the Leader of the House facilitate the meeting promised to me and members of the all-party group at the previous Defence questions?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Lady for demonstrating the cross-party support that there is to look after our veterans. I shall certainly raise this with the MOD and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs. My understanding is that it is, but I shall confirm that.

Mark Fletcher: Many of my constituents agreed to have a smart meter installed to receive data on real-time energy usage, which a growing number of people rely on to ensure they can effectively budget and find ways to reduce their energy bills, but British Gas only provides a 12-month warranty on its smart meter monitors, and if they break after that, customers cannot even pay to have a new monitor installed. British Gas claims that this is not a problem because people can access the data online or via a smartphone. However, as we know, many of our constituents are unable to use a computer or do not have a computer or a smartphone. Clearly, these people are being let down by their energy supplier, and they are struggling to budget for their bills. Will my right hon. Friend find time for a debate on increasing the statutory minimum period during which energy firms must provide technical support for this technology, so that my constituents can trust that they can rely on a smart meter for more than 12 months?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank my hon. Friend for shining a spotlight on this. This situation is completely nuts. We have made huge efforts to get people on to smart meters, with all the benefits that it might bring them, and then they are unable to continue using them and have to take manual readings—it is an insane situation. He is right to point out that the legislation covers the first 12 months, but we have reserved the right to introduce further legislation if required. I sincerely hope that that will not be necessary, and I urge British Gas and other such companies to think about the service they are giving their customers, particularly those who have mobility issues and who do not have access to the internet. This is an easy thing to sort out, and they damn well should.

Clive Efford: If the Leader of the House was in the Chamber just before the start of business questions, she will have heard me raise a point  of order on a letter I received from the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), relating to an issue that I raised in Transport questions. He was announcing that we would get extra train services off-peak on our local lines and said he had written to four MPs. I received that letter just after I asked my question. It has now emerged that Conservative MPs who received that letter were tweeting about it at 9 am this morning. Clearly, there has been favourable treatment of Conservative Members over Opposition Members. As Leader of the House, what does she have to say about that?

Penny Mordaunt: The hon. Gentleman credits us with a level of organisation that would be surprising! In all seriousness, I shall certainly look into that on his behalf. We have just had Transport questions, he has made a point of order, and he has raised the issue with me. The hon. Gentleman has done his due diligence and duty, and I will certainly look into it.

Wera Hobhouse: According to figures from the Office for National Statistics, the UK lost 370,000 businesses last year—that is a very big number. Many of those businesses went under because they were unable to cope with the rise in energy costs. In Bath, our business sector is rebounding well, with last year’s Christmas market raising £50 million for the local economy; however, it is extremely worrying that the Government are planning to jeopardise that recovery through cutting business energy support by 85% in April. Can we have a debate in Government time about this emerging national crisis?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Lady for raising that. Our business sector is incredibly resilient. We obviously supported businesses through the energy bill relief scheme, and as she will know, we are bringing in the energy bills discount scheme from April this year for the following 12 months. She will also know that the Budget is coming up, and I know that the Chancellor will be wanting to support local businesses in many ways. I encourage the hon. Lady to make representations to the Chancellor before the Budget.

Barbara Keeley: Yesterday, during the urgent question on testing of care home residents during the covid pandemic, I asked a question of the Social Care Minister, the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent (Helen Whately). I raised the fact that on 2 April 2020, I wrote jointly with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leicester South (Jonathan Ashworth) to the former Health and Social Care Secretary, the right hon. Member for West Suffolk (Matt Hancock), highlighting the urgent need for testing in care homes for staff and residents, and for patients being discharged from hospital. I also highlighted that in June 2021 I asked the right hon. Member for West Suffolk why the Government had not taken up the offer, made early in the pandemic by care providers, of new and unused care facilities to isolate people discharged from hospital before admitting them to care homes.
I have to say that the reply I got from the Social Care Minister yesterday was perfunctory, and overall her responses were lacking in empathy with the bereaved. These questions need to be debated now, in order to help the grieving families of the tens of thousands of residents and hundreds of staff of care homes who died  after contracting covid. Will the Leader of the House arrange a debate in Government time on matters around the heavy death toll of residents and staff of care homes from covid?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Lady for her question. She will know that I am very aware not just of the formal correspondence that she received but, having spent much of the first year of the pandemic on the phone every day to colleagues from across this House on those early-morning calls, of all the concerns, representations and ideas that were forwarded by Members from across the House to the Government throughout that time.
I agree with the hon. Lady that it is important that we have the covid inquiry, which will look at all of these matters. We also need, as has happened with the national resilience team in the Cabinet Office, to ensure that if—God forbid—a situation like that occurred again tomorrow, we would be in the best place and best prepared, and had had those immediate learnings. It is crucial that the covid inquiry is able to address those matters; speaking as someone who may be a witness to that inquiry, I think that is incredibly important. I will make sure that the Department of Health and Social Care has heard what the hon. Lady has said.

Dan Jarvis: This 20 March marks 20 years since the beginning of Operation Telic. Regardless of anyone’s views about the Iraq war, I am sure the Leader of the House will understand the importance of commemorating the service and sacrifice of the 179 brave servicemen and women who made the ultimate sacrifice in the service of our country. What plans do the Government have to ensure that those people are remembered, and what opportunities will there be for Members in this House to pay our respects?

Penny Mordaunt: May I first welcome this question from the hon. Gentleman? I also welcome that it is he who is asking this question, and I put on record our thanks, including to him personally for the service he gave in that part of the world. We are fortunate to have many Members in this place—about 10% of the Members of this House—to have served in our armed forces, and many of them will have been on Op Telic and served in that part of the world. He is right that it is incredibly important that we remember, educate, commemorate and give thanks for the service that was given, in particular by those 179 armed forces personnel who lost their lives. I know that Mr Speaker will be keen that we mark the anniversary in this place, and I shall write to the Ministry of Defence to make sure that it has heard the hon. Gentleman’s invitation today.

Gavin Newlands: I have been campaigning on the fact that Scottish football fans have to pay to see the men’s national team on TV. Indeed, during a Scotland game, Scottish fans could turn on their TVs to see the England team on free-to-air television—heaven forfend. Today, the Scottish Affairs Committee published a report calling for that issue to be addressed. Can we have a debate on that report? Will the Leader of the House give the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, the right hon. and learned Member for South East Cambridgeshire (Lucy Frazer) a nudge for me? Back on 1 December, her  predecessor, the right hon. Member for Chippenham (Michelle Donelan) agreed to meet me to discuss this subject, but her successor has not yet replied to my letter asking her to honour that.

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that matter. I encourage him to raise it at Department for Culture, Media and Sport questions on 9 March, but I shall certainly ensure that the Secretary of State has heard what he has said today.

John Cryer: The Leader of the House will be aware that there is extensive consensus across all parties to the effect that the homicidal maniacs and clerical fascists of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps should be proscribed and banned. I get that impression from Minister after Minister from the Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office and the Home Office, who come to the Dispatch Box and express sympathy with proscribing the organisation, but it does not quite seem to happen. Has there been any indication from the Foreign Secretary or the Minister of State that they are about to make any kind of decision or an announcement from the Dispatch Box that we will finally ban the IRGC?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising that very important matter. It is an opportunity to put on record that all Members of the House are deeply concerned by what is going on, and we will remain focused on exposing the brutality of what is happening. I can confirm that this matter is being looked at, and I shall certainly make sure that the FCDO and Secretary of State have heard his concerns again today.

Vicky Foxcroft: On 2 December, the Government announced that it would publish and consult on their disability action plan. Does the Leader of the House know when that will be published? When it is published, will the Leader of the House commit to providing a debate in Government time on this very important piece? If not, perhaps the Leader of the House might want to explain why not.

Penny Mordaunt: We have a record in this place of debating these matters, and I know they are of concern to all Members of the House. There is an opportunity on 6 March to ask the Secretary of State directly about the timetable. I am happy to make those inquiries on the hon. Lady’s behalf, as she has raised it today, and the Government Equalities Office of course has an interest, too.

Patrick Grady: Why have the Government not made time, as they really should have done, for a debate and a vote on early-day motion 794, which prays against the negative statutory instrument, the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill (Prohibition on Submission for Royal Assent) Order 2023?
[That an humble Address be presented to His Majesty, praying that the Gender Recognition Reform (Scotland) Bill (Prohibition on Submission for Royal Assent) Order 2023 (S.I., 2023, No. 41), dated 17 January 2023, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17 January 2023, be annulled.]

Penny Mordaunt: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on such a precise question. He asks why we have not tabled a debate on it; it is because that is not usual practice. The hon. Gentleman knows how to apply for one. If he has any further concerns, he can raise them with my office.

Justin Madders: Can we please have a debate on children’s access to education? I often have parents coming to see me who are struggling to get their children into school—their children may have complex needs or mental health issues, or are awaiting an education, health and care plan or a mental health referral, if they can get a referral at all. Parents are really struggling with some of those issues. When we hear Cabinet members suggesting that parents should have their benefits dropped if they cannot get their children into school, that shows a real lack of understanding of some of the struggles parents are facing. I think a debate would be really useful for Members to be informed of some of those challenges.

Penny Mordaunt: I think the hon. Gentleman is referring to a comment that the Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities, my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), made at a policy group. I would certainly welcome any debate on the Floor of the House that highlighted the number of children playing truant under a Labour Government. In my constituency alone, I had 600 children who were out of school for more than three months of the school year—that is Labour’s record. When we came in in 2010, a huge effort was made to get those children back in school, and we have had considerable success at doing that, but I am always interested in what more we can do to ensure that all children are getting access to not just education, but the tailored education they need.

Abena Oppong-Asare: It is almost two years since the Government announced that LGBT veterans who were shamelessly dismissed from the armed forces due to their sexuality could apply to have their medals restored. My constituent Richard Davidson’s great-great-uncle, Lieutenant Colonel Sidney Rumbold, was a hero who fought for our country in world war one, but who was court-martialled and dismissed because he was gay. Richard has applied to have Sidney’s medals restored, but has not received a response in about a year. Will the Leader of the House ensure that the Minister responsible comes to the House to explain why my constituents and others have not had their hard- earned medals restored?

Penny Mordaunt: That was an appalling wrong which I am very pleased we have righted. In addition to veterans being stripped of their medals, the manner in which it was done was the most appalling thing, and incredibly brutal to those individuals. It is right that we correct that. I thank the hon. Lady for getting that name on the record in Hansard. I will certainly write to the Ministry of Defence and the Office for Veterans’ Affairs to ensure that this particular case is dealt with swiftly.

Gerald Jones: Our constituents often exhaust other avenues before contacting their Members of Parliament, so when they do contact their Member of Parliament and we write on  their behalf, we should expect a response in a reasonable time. There are lots of cases where that does not happen, but the worst, as far as I am concerned, is a letter I wrote to the Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy on 5 November last year, which was transferred to the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on 23 November. Since then, despite eight chase-ups, my office has not received a substantive response. After I tabled a written question on 24 January, the response from the Under-Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Rebecca Pow), was that I would receive a reply in due course. That was on 30 January; it is now 2 March. It has been four months since the initial inquiry, and I have still received no substantive response. I know that the Leader of the House is concerned about this issue because it has been raised in the past. Could we have a debate on this issue so that we can see how widespread it actually is, and do something about it?

Penny Mordaunt: I am very sorry to hear that. That is not an acceptable situation. I thank the hon. Gentleman for the detail he gave in his question and, if he would pass those details to my office, I will raise the matter when I see the permanent secretaries next week.

Andrew Gwynne: We are now less than a month away from a new financial year. Over the past few weeks, councils have been setting the budgets that they have been working on for months now, but we still do not have the public health grant for England allocated to local government. Will the Leader of the House crack the whip with the Ministers responsible and get that information out to local governments so that they can finalise their public health allocations in their budgets, and will she apologise to councillors of all political persuasions for this sorry affair having dragged on for so long?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Gentleman for raising the issue. He tried to get an urgent question on it. He will know that I have raised the matter on his behalf with the relevant Departments. I would just say to him that it is not unusual—there are reasons for it—for those funding allocations to be published this month and sometimes later. I will again make sure that the Department has heard his concerns, but it is not an unusual situation. Of course, we want to make sure people have information in a timely way to make those decisions.

Helen Morgan: My right hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr Carmichael) has already raised the issue of access to the alternative   fuel payment and some of the chaos around its application. It is the second day of meteorological spring. People who are off grid, and people who do not have a direct relationship with their electricity supplier, are still waiting for the portal through which they can apply for a payment to go live. These are some of the most vulnerable people—in some cases, they are in park homes or canal boats—and they have not had any help with their fuel bills for the whole winter. So can we ask for a statement from the Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero on how and when these people can expect some help with their energy bills?

Penny Mordaunt: I thank the hon. Lady for that question. Again, I would refer her to the gov.uk website. I will certainly follow up after this meeting and ask someone from the Department to get in touch with her office and her caseworkers to make sure she has the answers.

Jim Shannon: There are many things across the world that need to be highlighted, whether it be Nigeria’s elections and the allegations of fraud, the persecution of Christians in India, or  the escalation of violence in the Democratic Republic  of the Congo. But this morning, I would like to ask a question about the Pakistan Institute for Conflict and Security Studies having reported that February saw a surge in militant attacks, and the targets of these attacks are the Government and religious minority communities. During the recess, as chair of the all-party parliamentary group on international freedom of religion or belief, I led a delegation to Pakistan, and we saw at first hand the impact on Ahmadis, Christians, Hindus, Shi’as and other minorities in the country. Will the Leader of the House join me in condemning these attacks and issuing a statement of support for Pakistan’s religious minorities?

Penny Mordaunt: I would be very happy to join the hon. Gentleman in sending that message. We place great responsibility and focus on freedom of religion. We know that, where there is intolerance, this has a huge impact, with many people displaced and, of course, appalling violence and conflict. That is why the FCDO and other Departments invest so much in combating that. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on record today, and for all the work he does to ensure that people around the world can enjoy freedom of religion.

Rosie Winterton: I thank the Leader of the House for answering the business questions.

Backbench Business

Change of Name by Registered Sex Offenders

[Relevant document: e-petition 300705, Revoke the right of registered sex offenders to change their name by deed poll.]

Rosie Winterton: Before I call Sarah Champion, I just remind all Members that they should not refer to any cases that are active before the courts. They can of course discuss the principles of the issue, without referring to specific cases.

Sarah Champion: I beg to move,
That this House has considered the change of name by registered sex offenders.
I am grateful to have the opportunity to lead this debate. I thank all the Members who have supported this campaign. I particularly thank the survivors, many of whom are here today, for their tireless work to try to close this loophole and make sure no one else suffers as they have been forced to.
This debate is specific: it is about registered sex offenders changing their name without the knowledge of the police, leading to many offenders going missing, securing a Disclosure and Barring Service check under the new name and then reoffending. Unless this loophole is closed, it makes a nonsense of the schemes the public rely on to detect offenders. For example, the sex offenders register, the child sex offenders disclosure system, the domestic violence disclosure scheme and the Disclosure and Barring Service all rely on having the correct name.
I first found out about this dangerous loophole through the incredible campaigning work of the Safeguarding Alliance three years ago. Its findings and the impact this has had on survivors are truly chilling. I have repeatedly raised the issue with the Home Office and Justice Ministers, as well as the Master of Rolls, who oversees the enrolled deed poll, yet still no tangible change has taken place.
Currently, under the Sexual Offences Act 2003, all registered sex offenders are legally required to notify the police of any change in their personal details, including a change of name and address.

Jim Shannon: I commend the hon. Lady for bringing this forward. I think every one of us in this House supports her in everything she does, and we greatly admire her tenacity and courage on these issues. Unfortunately, I cannot stay for the debate as I have other engagements, but does she agree that the fact that, from a period in 2019 to June 2022, there were 11,536 prosecutions of sex offenders for failing to notify the police of a change in their personal information, such as their name, shows the scale of the issue and demonstrates that we must legislate to protect our vulnerable as a matter of urgency? I know that is what she wants and it is certainly what I want as well.

Sarah Champion: I thank my hon. Friend, who is as tenacious as I am in trying to challenge these gross abuses of the system. The figures he quotes are Safeguarding  Alliance figures that it got as a result of freedom of information requests, but they are only for some police forces, so the scale of the issue is much greater than even that shocking figure.
If a registered sex offender wants to change their name, they must tell the police within three days, or they could face up to five years in prison. But these notification requirements leave the onus entirely on the offender to self-report changes in their personal information. If the sex offender breaches these requirements, and therefore faces prison, they must first be caught.
Data that I and others have collated shows that the scale of this issue is breathtaking. The Home Office confirmed, in responses to my written parliamentary questions, that over 16,000 offenders were charged with a breach of their notification requirements between 2015 and 2020. A Safeguarding Alliance FOI request to the Crown Prosecution Service found that over 11,500 registered sex offenders were prosecuted for failure to notify changes of information between 2019 and 2022. Those breaches are likely to have been for name changes or other such changes. It is clear that offenders are changing their names and not disclosing their new name to the police, but the exact scale of the problem remains impossible to capture. It is important to emphasise that these are only the cases we know about: many more offenders could have breached their notification requirements without the police’s knowledge. Offenders are also required to visit a police station to comply with notification requirements, but only once a year.
Evidently, thousands are getting caught when they breach their requirements, but it appears that many are not. An FOI request by the Safeguarding Alliance to police forces confirmed that at least 913 registered sex offenders have gone missing between 2017 and 2020. However, only 17 of the 45 police forces responded to the request, indicating that that figure is only the tip of the iceberg.
New data secured by the BBC demonstrates the same ongoing pattern, allowing offenders to slip through the cracks. Over 700 registered sex offenders have gone missing in the last three years. It is highly likely that they breached their notification requirements without getting caught, making them an active risk to the public. Again, only 31 of 45 police forces responded to that request.
Many offenders are following the rules. At least 1,400 registered sex offenders have notified police forces of name changes in the past three years, with 21 of the 45 police forces able to provide that data. However, the number of cases where notification requirements are not being obeyed far outweighs those where they are. We cannot rely on a system that depends on registered offenders self-reporting changes in their information. If we do not urgently improve the system, we will have to accept that hundreds more offenders will continue to disappear from the system meant to safeguard us.
When I first learned about this breach, I spoke to my local police chief. He was genuinely stunned. We was unaware of the loophole and asked how he was meant to find someone when they no longer knew who they were looking for. If we are going to protect children and vulnerable people, and prevent further abuse, we must be able to keep track of those who are already known to be a safeguarding risk. Unless we address the failure in the current system, police will continue to be unaware  of a name change and the sex offenders register will not be up to date with the new names, therefore considerably reducing its effectiveness.
It is vital we remember not only the danger posed to society by sex offenders changing their names, but the devastating impact it has on their previous victims. Della Wright is an ambassador for the Safeguarding Alliance and a survivor of child sexual abuse. Della has spoken so bravely to tell her story in support of so many other victims who have been impacted by this serious safeguarding loophole. I pay huge credit to her, as her tenacious campaigning is what has brought this issue to public attention.
When Della was a child, a man came to live in her home, becoming one of her primary carers and repeatedly sexually abusing her. Years later, when Della reported the abuse, her abuser was already known to the police and he had committed further sexual offences against many more victims. Della was made aware that he had changed his name; he had changed it at least five times, enabling him to relocate under the radar and evade justice. When Della’s case was finally brought to court, he again changed his name, this time in between being charged and appearing in court for the plea hearing. That slowed down the whole process as new court papers needed to be submitted in the new name.
The additional distress to Della made a complete mockery of the justice system, but sadly Della’s case is far from unique. The Safeguarding Alliance is working with dozens of survivors—a number of them are here today—who have discovered their abuser has changed their name. Many say their perpetrators change their name before charging, meaning their birth name remains unmaligned. Perhaps most chilling for me is that, with a new name, they can apply for a new passport and driving licence, which means they can apply for a clean DBS check in that new name.

Judith Cummins: I thank my hon. Friend for securing this important debate. Does she agree that, in addition to ensuring that registered sex offenders have markers on their files at the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency and His Majesty’s Passport Office, the DBS should require all applicants to produce a birth certificate to better verify their identity?

Sarah Champion: I support my hon. Friend’s recommendation. Anything we can do to try to close this loophole I support, because the scale of it and the fact that the systems we have in place are not working mean that we need—Minister, we need—urgent attention and urgent reforms.
BBC research found that more than 2,000 criminal record checks carried out by the DBS in the past three years flagged that the applicants had cautions or convictions, and that they had supplied incorrect or missed out personal details, such as their past names. Those figures are shocking. It is a relief that the DBS found so many of those cases but, if even a few slip through the gaps in the system, the consequences are devastating.

Tim Loughton: I pay tribute to the hon. Lady and I hope my name was added in support of this debate. It is breathtaking. I raised the issue over six years ago when we had the case of Ben Lewis, who changed his name after being convicted  and put on the sex offenders register. He then turned up in Spain, working with children. It was only found out about accidentally, I think through the Australian police. The Home Office acknowledged that this was a problem and said it was taking it on board. There are 67,000 sex offenders on the register in this country and 16,000 have changed their names. This is not just a tip of the iceberg—it is deliberately being used as a cover for their identity and potential future criminal activity. Does she agree that, frankly, other than in exceptional circumstances, people on the sex offenders register should not be allowed to change their name while they are on the sex offenders register and that, secondly, there is absolutely no reason that somebody in prison should be able to change their name while they are serving a prison sentence? It is not necessary and it is clearly for ulterior motives that cannot be good.

Sarah Champion: My personal position is that when someone carries out such heinous crimes, some of their liberties will be taken away. We need the Minister to look very closely at what those liberties are, particularly when there is an incredibly apparent safeguarding risk from names being changed, as the hon. Member outlined. I will come to Ben Lewis, because his case outlines a number of flaws in the system.
Let me say to the Minister that our systems are not joined up. People are actively looking for those weaknesses and exploiting them. I urge her to do all she can to close them as quickly as possible.

Jim Shannon: The hon. Lady is being very generous. My constituents, and those of the hon. Lady and of all Members, want legislation to give safety to mothers and children. We do not see that at the moment, as she has reinforced to the Minister. Does she feel that this debate should be the start of a campaign to change legislation to protect those who are under threat?

Sarah Champion: I completely agree. So many MPs are here, even though on Thursdays we are usually in our constituencies, because they have changed their diaries to show their support and solidarity. I hope that the Minister recognises that.
Registered sex offenders are supposed to inform the police if they go abroad but, again, that does not always happen. Let me turn to the example of Ben Lewis. He was a registered sex offender who changed his name, moved to Spain and obtained a clean DBS check under his new name. He then worked in British schools in Madrid until he was arrested for further offences. I am in touch with the mother of one of the children he abused, and I thank her for all her campaigning to raise awareness of this safeguarding failure, but it should not have happened. Action to stop it happening is long overdue.
Almost two years ago, with cross-party support, I tabled a new clause to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Bill, which required the Government to conduct a review into registered sex offenders changing their names. The review has been completed, but Ministers say that it is an internal document and that the findings will not be published. The Home Office also asked former chief constable Mick Creedon to carry out an independent review into the management of sex offenders in the community. One assumes that it should have covered this issue—we do not know the terms—but, again, we have no information on its findings.
This is clearly a matter of acute public interest. More than 37,000 people signed a petition calling for action more than two years ago. Public money is being spent, but we have seen no outcomes. We need transparency to know that Ministers are working to provide solutions to these issues. I would be grateful if the Minister updated us on those reviews.
What can be done to address the loophole? There are simple, immediate changes that could take place to address some of the safeguarding failures. The College of Policing guidance states that police can take pre-emptive action where an offender is likely to change their identity or leave the country. Those actions include requesting the Passport Office and the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency to put an electronic marker on the offender’s file to alert the officer in charge if an application should be made. As I said, a driver’s licence or passport is required for a DBS check, so that would also prevent registered sex offenders acquiring a clean DBS check if applied to all registered sex offenders’ files. However, the guidance states:
“To avoid unnecessary or high volumes of requests to these agencies, enquiries should be limited”
to where, apparently, a specific risk factor applies. That means that it is not being applied to all sex offenders, though I would say that all registered sex offenders are a risk.
I believe that this electronic tagging must be mandatory for all registered sex offenders. I accept that that would only retrospectively alert the police to a name change, but at least it would enable them to act and to keep track of an offender’s identity once a breach occurs, so it would be better than what we have already. It would not pick up on cases in which offenders have already changed their name, so I will do everything I can to work with the Minister and find a solution where offenders have already carried out that change.
In response to BBC FOI requests, neither the Passport Office nor the DVLA was able to provide detailed answers about how often they actually use these measures. The deed poll records team at the Royal Courts of Justice said that
“we simply enrol the change of name applications completed by the applicants.”
That is a very passive position to take. They did say that they would
“check for particular change of name for specific year when a Data Protection Act request had been received”.
Again, that requires police or Ministers to proactively ask for that information, which a sex offender can just change without any restraint. I understand that there may be sensitive information linked to such requests, but parliamentarians and the public must be assured that systems are being used effectively.
I appreciate that electronically flagging every registered sex offender’s file requires additional resources, but surely preventing the risk of more offences would be worth the costs. To be clear, when sex offenders are no longer on the register, such a requirement would not be necessary, in my opinion. However, the current system is being exploited by hundreds of sex offenders, and action needs to be taken now.
I am not asking for a ban on all registered sex offenders changing their name. We must take a nuanced approach, and in any case how would we monitor the scheme if  the responsibility were left to them? Circumstances differ, and we must allow police the operational independence to make decisions as to whether offenders should be able to change their name. However, where such decisions are made, victims and survivors must be informed, safeguarding must be prioritised and the systems must be joined up so that registered offenders can be tracked regardless of the name they use.

Lucy Allan: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to speak in this very important debate. I am so grateful to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for the work she has done for victims and survivors. While Under-Secretaries may come and go, it is so reassuring to see the hon. Lady in her place, constantly standing up for victims and survivors.
I want to tell the story of my constituent Joanna. Joanna is an amazing young woman. She is bright, she is brave and she is beautiful. Joanna is a student paramedic and has just started a family. She has her whole life ahead of her. Joanna wants her story to be told, because for too long there was silence. It is by speaking out that we secure justice for victims and survivors such as Joanna, and we must listen to their voices.
For much of her young life, Joanna was a victim of serious sexual abuse. She was the victim of a manipulative, depraved man called Clive Bundy. The scale and nature of the abuse is beyond comprehension; it was discovered when the police identified sexual images online. Clive Bundy was arrested and sentenced to 15 years in prison.
After serving only seven years, Clive Bundy is up for parole. This child sex offender is no longer Clive Bundy. This person has changed their name by deed poll, and this person has changed their gender identity. Under the law, Clive Bundy no longer exists. Clive Bundy has chosen the name of Claire Fox. Under section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act 2004, we cannot say even that this is so. Joanna’s fear is that this new identity erases Clive Bundy, erases the terrible harm that he did, erases Joanna’s experience. She fears that the world can refuse to acknowledge that Clive Bundy and his terrible crimes ever even existed—that we can just pretend that the trauma she still suffers, the trauma Clive Bundy caused her and others, did not happen, because he does not exist.
What is certain is that Claire Fox will be afforded enhanced rights of privacy that should never, ever be afforded to a serious child sex offender. I believe in redemption, I believe in rehabilitation, but that does not and cannot mean that we rewrite the past. It does not mean that these truly horrific crimes simply never happened. Joanna wants the names of Clive Bundy and Claire Fox to be linked on official records because Clive Bundy and Claire Fox are the same person. The law requires us all to pretend that that is not so: the law requires us to pretend that a convicted serial child sex offender, Clive Bundy, no longer exists. The impact on Joanna is deeply distressing. She speaks of her past coming back to haunt her, of the constant fear, of always looking over her shoulder, and of her anxiety that her new life and her young family could be under threat and that she is, in her words,
“once again that young abused scared little girl—that no one protected.”
We are told this is a loophole in the Disclosure and Barring Service which can perhaps be fixed, but I am going to call it what it is. This is a grotesque injustice to  victims—victims whom we failed and victims whom we will fail again if we allow the law to pretend that the crimes of sexual offenders like Clive Bundy can be expunged by deed poll and never referred to again.
The question of whether Claire Fox is a continuing threat to society is a matter for the Parole Board, and this is an issue that I will be pursuing with the relevant Minister through separate avenues, but today’s debate is about whether sex offenders can erase their identities. The rights of victims and the vulnerable matter more than the rights of serial child sex offenders. We all know that that is the case. I therefore ask the Minister to be brave enough to say that it is the case, and to have the courage to stand up and change the law for Joanna, and for Della, and for all those victims who will come after them if we do not act.

Joanna Cherry: I actually want to raise the point that has just been raised by the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan). The debate is clearly centred on the law and practice in England and Wales, but similar problems exist in Scotland, and Disclosure Scotland operates the same model.
Let me preface my speech by saying that in a previous life I worked for many years as a specialist sex crimes prosecutor with the national sex crimes unit in the Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service in Scotland. I am therefore acutely aware of the importance of the effect of the prosecution of sex crimes, particularly for the protection of women and girls but also for the protection of children and some men. I am also very aware of the importance of safeguarding and of the way in which those who wish to abuse their power by sexually abusing women and children will seek out loopholes and opportunities to find new victims. Today I want to focus on the safe- guarding loophole created by the ability to change identity in a more fundamental way, by simultaneously changing both name and gender.
I should say that I have been assisted in the writing of my speech and my understanding of this issue by Dr Kate Coleman of the organisation Keep Prisons Single Sex, which campaigns for prisons in the United Kingdom to be single-sex but also campaigns for data on offending to be recorded by sex registered at birth through the criminal justice system.
The Disclosure and Barring Service plays a vital and unique role in safeguarding. By processing criminal record checks for individuals who have applied to work in roles where safeguarding considerations apply, it allows organisations access to key information that will assist them in making safer recruiting decisions. The ability of a DBS check to play this role in safe- guarding rests entirely on the relevance, completeness and accuracy of the information returned and displayed on the DBS certificate.
In December 2003, as everyone will recall, Ian Huntley was convicted of the terrible murders of two little girls, Jessica Chapman and Holly Wells. Huntley had been employed as a caretaker at a local college at the time of committing the murders, a position that facilitated his access to children. That is what people who want to abuse children do: they seek out positions in which they will have access to children. Although he had previously come into contact with the police on many occasions  over alleged sexual offences, that information had not been disclosed to his employer during the vetting check carried out at the time of his appointment.
It is no exaggeration to say that the murders of those two little girls, and the subsequent discovery that Huntley could and should have been prevented from taking up the role of caretaker, had a profound effect throughout the United Kingdom. The Bichard report, published in 2004 following an independent inquiry, concluded that there had been extensive omissions and failures in the vetting process.
Significantly, Huntley had been able to change his name by deed poll to Ian Nixon. The criminal record check he underwent had been carried out against only his new identity. By presenting a new identity, he had successfully severed the link with his existing police record, meaning that the records held against the name Ian Huntley were not disclosed.

Pauline Latham: I apologise for being late, Madam Deputy Speaker. I would have liked to contribute to this debate, but the ticket machine broke and I missed my train. I apologise for coming into the Chamber just to make an intervention. This is such an important debate, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing it and for her work.
As the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) has just said, the ability for people to apply for a DBS check to work with children after changing their name by deed poll entirely defeats the object of the sex offenders register. Does she agree that the requirement for sex offenders to notify the authorities themselves is entirely unfit for purpose and that there needs to be a much more robust and centralised mechanism through which sex offenders can apply to change their name?

Joanna Cherry: I could not agree more.
The hon. Lady reminds me that, at the outset of my speech, I should have congratulated the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) who, as always, is completely across the subject. She often raises important issues, both in this House and in the public domain, that others have not dared to raise. I pay tribute to her for that.
I am talking about the Huntley case because it is disgraceful that, 18 years later, safeguarding loopholes remain whereby applicants can submit identity documents for DBS checks that display a new identity, despite the efforts of various hon. Members. At least the Government have acknowledged the safeguarding loophole whereby registered sex offenders are able to change their name by deed poll, but I am afraid that the ability to change identity in a more fundamental way, about which the hon. Member for Telford spoke so powerfully, by simultaneously changing one’s name and one’s gender, remains unaddressed.
In our public life, across the United Kingdom, self-identification has become a de facto right without legislation. Any individual can easily, and for any reason, change their name and gender on documents commonly used to establish identity via a process of self-declaration. That includes documents such as passports and driving licences, which can be presented for the purposes of a DBS check and show the individual’s new name and acquired gender instead of, and as opposed to, their sex.
The DBS grants enhanced privacy rights to individuals who change their gender when changing their identity. Those are exceptional rights that are granted only to individuals in that group. The result is that identity verification is compromised, meaning that there is no guarantee that the information returned during the check and displayed on the certificate will be accurate or complete. Those exceptional privacy rights also allow an applicant who has changed gender to request that all their previous names are withheld from the DBS certificate that is issued. That right to conceal previous identities is not given to anyone else; disclosing previous identities is a key component of safeguarding, and DBS certificates issued to all other individuals display all other names the applicant has used.
No doubt there were good reasons for the privacy requirements set out in section 22 of the Gender Recognition Act. I hasten to add that I am completely in favour of equal rights for trans people, but I am not in favour of a system that allows sex offenders to exploit the principle of self-declaration to evade the safeguarding process. Applicants who change their gender are also permitted to conceal their sex, and the DBS certificate issued will display their acquired gender instead. That right is not granted to any other individual; the importance of sex to safeguarding means that for all other applicants, their sex is always displayed on the DBS certificate. These are all serious risks to safeguarding that compromise the validity and reliability of the DBS regime.
This is a particular problem as we roll out digital identities, including for DBS checks, because there is a risk that the existing loopholes will be perpetuated in the digital realm. In the drive for convenience and ease of use, digital identities risk creating a new safeguarding loophole. In-person identity verification acts as a safe- guarding protection in and of itself, yet digital identities can be shared remotely, meaning that that important step is removed. The current operation of the DBS regime means that identity verification is compromised and organisations requesting DBS checks cannot have confidence in the information that is disclosed.
There are steps we could take to close the loopholes: the mandatory use of national insurance numbers for DBS checks and identity changes; having DBS certificates that display the sex registered at birth; and having DBS certificates that display other names used for all applicants, including those who have changed gender as part of changing identity. We are talking about rules of safeguarding that apply to people who have been convicted of sex offences, so all of this should be a no-brainer. In order to be effective, the rules of safeguarding must apply equally to everyone.

Tim Loughton: I am pleased that the hon. and learned Lady has raised this issue. It is extraordinary that more than 20 years on from what happened at Soham, we are still addressing here today the issues that came up then. It seems absolutely a no-brainer, as she puts it, that for people who have committed heinous crimes and whose sex offending history shows that they still pose a potential to harm children, the full identity should be available to those who need to see the DBS checks as they are taking them into employment. I think there is a degree of agreement on that. The change of gender qualifications, which I fully understand and which are necessary, should  not apply to sex offenders. A full change of name history must be automatically linked at the DBS, and a change of name must be automatically linked to a DBS check, to make sure that all that information is available in respect of those people who pose a risk to vulnerable children.

Joanna Cherry: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He correctly encapsulates what it is that I am asking for: in order to be effective, the rules of safeguarding must apply equally to everyone and there must not be loopholes or get-outs. Whenever the members of one group are excused from the normal requirements of safeguarding, a loophole is created that is ripe for exploitation.
I wish to make one final point. I am sure that we will hear that abusing the process and failing to disclose previous names is an offence, but that is just not good enough. A minor matter of administrative fraud such as making a false declaration is nothing in comparison to the significant risk posed by sex offenders abusing this system, which is really ripped open by the loopholes that I have described. It is high time that the safeguarding loopholes, which result in a situation where people—sex offenders—can change their identity, are addressed.

Mark Fletcher: In anticipation of the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley (Jess Phillips), I should say that I think we are all slightly baffled as to why we are here. This is a ludicrous loophole and we know that it is a problem. We have found out, to a certain extent, the scale of the problem, although there are still questions about that. The fact that there is a problem and that it should be solved is agreed, I think, by Members on both sides of the House, although I wait to hear from the Home Office on that front. It is very clear that we should be solving it. I did a local media interview yesterday, because I had a ten-minute rule Bill on the same subject, and the local BBC reporter, who was trying their very best to be devil’s advocate and to be impartial, reached the point of saying, “Are you banging your head against the wall? This seems an absolute no-brainer.” I feel that the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) strayed into that territory.
I shall go back to where I intended to start, which is to thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting the debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) not just for securing the debate, but for all the work she has done on the issue. As she knows, I am a latecomer to the matter: I have ended up in this world because of some constituency casework. However, having spent the past two months or so looking into it, I cannot say that I am any the wiser as to why it has not been solved. Undoubtedly, there are some complications. She and I have a small and minor disagreement about how to solve the matter, and I will touch on that.
I should also say thank you to the staff of the Safeguarding Alliance, as I did yesterday, who have provided so much data, so much leadership and so much coherence, and who, I fear, have been banging their heads against the wall a lot more than I have in recent times. It is a great credit to them that so many MPs are in the Chamber today. Many of my Conservative colleagues are in Windsor for an away day. Some lucky Whips and others have drawn the duty of avoiding that, and it was probably wise of them to volunteer to do so.
I do not wish to draw on any of the details that I covered in yesterday’s ten-minute rule Bill, when I set out the problem, as the hon. Member for Rotherham did today, and the sheer horrendousness of this situation. It feels as though we are prioritising the rights of sexual offenders over the rights of the general public and over the rights of people who need to know whether the people working in their schools are safe, whether the people working in their care homes are safe, whether their partner has a past or whether someone who is interacting with their child is safe.
Yesterday, I drew on the Ian Huntley situation and the Bichard inquiry, to which the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West referred only seconds ago. That happened in 2004, and yet here we are in the same situation, still talking about the need to prevent sex offenders from changing their name. It is worth noting that the Disclosure and Barring Service that we now use came about as a result of Ian Huntley’s horrendous actions. Indeed, the Bichard inquiry led to the creation of the DBS system, and it is that very system that is being undermined by the ability of offenders to change their name and to escape recognition, thereby creating a blind spot for the authorities.
The hon. and learned Lady and I have a small disagreement over what needs to be done. I am not necessarily sure whether either of us would object to the other’s solution being accepted; it is the problem that needs solving. None the less, it is worth stating to the Minister, in advance of her speech, that I am pretty solutions-agnostic. The fact that there is a problem and that it needs solving is beyond dispute, but how we get to solving that problem is crucial. I think it is worth acknowledging that there are complications to what we are trying to do. Undoubtedly, they are what Home Office and Ministry of Justice officials will use to try to prevent any progress, so I shall put those complications on the record now, so that we can consider them together.
First, we have long and established common law rights in this country to change our name. That is well established in law. My perspective is that a person surrenders certain rights when they are charged and found guilty of an offence by the state. That is my opinion; it is not necessarily the opinion of this House, because we have not voted specifically on this issue. However, as I said yesterday, we have prevented prisoners from exercising their voting rights, which is a clear comparison.
It is worth noting that changing our name through the unenrolled process could not be easier if we tried. Effectively, the wording is:
“I [old name] of [your address] have given up my name [old name] and have adopted for all purposes the name [new name].”
I could leave this Chamber being called John Bercow if someone would kindly countersign my form. It is that simple. I use that example perhaps facetiously. I certainly do not wish to bring Mr Bercow back into this Chamber in any way, shape or form, but it is worth considering that that is the unenrolled process.
There is a slightly different system if someone wants to take the legal route. I changed my name when I was seven years old. My original name is Mark Hannington, which is my dad’s name. I changed it because my mum remarried. It is relatively common and, indeed, incredibly easy to change one’s name. I know that we are talking about a very extreme situation here, because we have to go through those who have committed an offence, are  on the sex offenders register, and then wish to change their identity, and then may get a new document and then may get a DBS check. It is a flow chart that has to be followed through. We should consider the processes involved, but it is, none the less, an incredibly easy thing to do.
Yesterday, the Home Office released a statement in response, in part, to the BBC’s latest research, on which the hon. Lady has already touched, about our incredibly “robust” response. I found myself laughing about that in more than one local media interview. I find that very difficult to defend, because it is not a robust response. It might look tough on paper and Home Office officials might have persuaded themselves that this is actually a robust system, but the sheer scale of those breaching the system is huge, and that is before we even get on to the ones that we do not know about. I give great credit to the hon. Member for Rotherham for being so polite when she touched on that particular section; I will not be as polite when I come to her amendment to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Bill in, I think, 2021. Our robust system is no such thing.
One thing we have not touched on is this: what is the sex offenders register? We have 43 different police forces in this country. They each have a version of the sex offenders register, which is usually highly localised. It is, in effect, a document or an Excel spreadsheet of some variety that sits with that force. The super-important national system that captures all offenders and is easy to refer to is no such thing, as I was horrified to discover from my discussions with the Safeguarding Alliance. It is part of the system and it sounds official—it sounds good—but it is not the robust and safeguard-friendly system that we would like to see.

Sarah Champion: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman, who has used every tool that the House provides to fight this campaign and I am grateful to him for doing that in such a cross-party way. On the specifics of the national database, there is HOLMES 2—the Home Office large major enquiry system—but it requires the officer to input the details. It does not flag, so it means that they have to know that someone has changed their name to know that they need to look for them, and the once-a-year check gives someone a lot of scope to go around in their different identity. It is madness. The public believe that the systems are there; they are not there.

Mark Fletcher: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention. I hope that the cameramen who cover the Chamber had the hon. Member for Birmingham, Yardley in shot, because her facial expressions said almost everything that I would want to say about that, but I am not necessarily sure that I can.
It is undoubtedly true that there are complications around name changes. The simplest of those is that someone on the sex offenders register may get married, which may provide a complication or a barrier—again, I refer to my previous statements about giving up certain rights. Complications have also been alluded to with regard to changing gender, on which we have heard two excellent speeches, so I will not touch on that further.
Another complication, however, which falls outside what I suggested in my ten-minute rule Bill yesterday, and which I think was vaguely alluded to earlier, is the growing trend for someone to change their name when  they are charged with an offence—not necessarily when they have been found guilty, but during the process before they go to court. Someone charged with an offence will therefore go through the court under their new identity—we often see cases in the newspapers of someone “also known as”—then once they have been found guilty, assuming that they are in this instance, and come out the other side, they change their name back to what they were originally known as.
That situation is a bit more complicated. If my ten-minute rule Bill had a flaw—it probably had more than one—it is that it did not capture that. Hon. Members have already alluded to two documents that we keep with us throughout our lives, however: our birth certificate and our national insurance number. They do not change, so if we want our system to be robust, the answer lies in those two bits of information.

Tim Loughton: My hon. Friend raises some concerns about where exceptions can be made. We can do that, because as it stands the right for someone to change their name, which is an important right, is not completely unqualified. There are six criteria according to which someone cannot change their name—for example, if it promotes criminal activity; if it promotes racial, sexual or religious intolerance; or if it ridicules people or businesses. I recall that some years ago, a disgruntled customer changed his name to “Halifax building society are complete bastards” or something to that effect—I may be doing Halifax an injustice. Another criterion is if someone is intending to commit fraud, usually by conferring a title or honour on themselves. The situation that he refers to is effectively an attempt to commit fraud, so we need only extend the existing criteria to capture many of those people anyway. It is not a big deal—it is easily done; it is a no-brainer—so let us just get on with it.

Mark Fletcher: My hon. Friend, as always, brilliantly makes an incredibly eloquent point. I imagine that the Minister is scribbling down that suggestion, so I look forward to seeing it in the victims Bill alongside every other sensible recommendation that has come from hon. Members today.
I put some of those complications on the record simply because I acknowledge that this is not a perfect scenario. The issue is an absolute head-banger, however: some 20 years on from a horrific set of crimes in which it was identified, we still have not done anything.
I return to the proposed amendment of the hon. Member for Rotherham to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. I have read her speech in Committee, in which she eloquently told Della’s story. She tabled a sensible amendment, which was miniscule in the grand scheme of things, to ask for a report into the scale of the problem. One thing that I struggle with is that we do not know how widespread the problem is. We could change the law today to prevent it happening in future, but unfortunately we have had years in which it has been operational and not necessarily allowed, but happening.
I am relying on second-hand testimony, but it was easy to read that the Minister at the time said, “We will happily do the report, so please don’t move your amendment.” It is perfectly reasonable for the Minister  to do that, but it is unacceptable for the Department not to release said report and to use many different reasons not to publish it. It is a tremendous slap in the face for the work of the hon. Lady, and for those who are sitting in the Gallery and are victims of the problem. I cannot fathom how that has been allowed.
We are dealing with a situation where we know there is a problem, but we do not know the scale of it. Until that report is released, I do not think that any of us will feel satisfied. It may be that that report is quite damning and that the scale is quite bad, or it may be the opposite. Either way, we as lawmakers have been co-operative and constructive with the Government Front-Bench team as far as I have seen—again, I thank the hon. Lady for being generous to me—so I cannot work out why we have not seen that report. I urge the Minister to give thought to that.
I conclude by saying that, simply, I am banging my head against the wall because we need to take action on this issue. I came to it because of constituency casework, and as we have heard, several other MPs have had similar casework. This problem needs to be fixed. The rights of sex offenders and the right of someone to change their name do not trump safeguarding in this country. I urge the Government to think long and hard about any forthcoming opportunities to amend the statute book and to ensure that, legally and operationally, this problem is not allowed to continue.

Paula Barker: I congratulate and pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), who has done and said so much on this issue. When it comes to the protection of the most vulnerable and those who often feel that they do not have a voice, she has stood up and elevated their voices in this place and beyond. I also thank my many constituents who have contacted me about this important subject.
Sex offenders are a scourge on our society. They commit the most heinous crimes and the ripple effects of their actions on the victim, their family and their friends cannot be overstated—both in the immediate aftermath of the crime and long into the future. Anyone can fall victim to sex offences, but the victims are often women, girls and young boys.
Della Wright’s story is testimony to the fact that we in this place, to date, have failed to close the loopholes that make it all too easy for sex offenders to mask their identity and avoid detection. In turn, that allows them to go on reoffending, targeting the most vulnerable, and destroying lives.
This has gone on for far too long, and enough really is enough. Current legislation has effectively been rendered redundant, owing to the duty being on the individual sex offender to notify the authorities within three days of changing their name.In thousands of instances, it is apparent that those individuals are not doing the right thing and notifying the police. Why are we shocked? We should not be. And, while we remain shocked, the consequences are being played out every single day in our communities.
Thanks to the extensive work of organisations such as the Safeguarding Alliance, the picture could not be clearer. As lawmakers, we have absolute clarity on what needs to be done, and the Home Office must not drag its  feet any longer. Due to the name-change loophole, the sex offenders register, the child sex offender disclosure scheme, the domestic violence disclosure scheme and the Disclosure and Barring Service are effectively rudderless.
Through its work, the Safeguarding Alliance has exposed the scale of this epidemic, which we in this place, and Government, must act on. Every day that we in this place fail to act, we are betraying the bravery and tenacity of survivors such as Della Wright and those whose voices we are yet to hear. Quite frankly, that should shame us all.
To the Home Office, and to the Minister today, I say this: publish the internal review and get legislation on the Floor of the House, because the most vulnerable in our society—the victims—deserve nothing less.

Paul Beresford: I must congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) and my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher) for putting the case extremely well yesterday and today. I was also fascinated by what the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) had to say based on her experience—and for people dealing with these individuals, it is some experience.
I will not repeat the exercise of describing the problem, or come up with any sort of solutions, but the United Kingdom has probably led the way on legislation dealing with the protection of children. We started that with a proactive approach—rather than a reactive one—which I think is the right way to do it. If it is possible, we get the offender before the offender has got the child. That is the thinking, in a way, behind what we are talking about today.
I went on a parliamentary police course with the Metropolitan police in the early 2000s, which included a session with the Met police paedophile unit. Most people read about cases on the front pages—or some other page—but they do not really know; they do not really have a feel of what it was like. That session with the unit was an enormous shock to me—an absolutely mind-boggling shock. It is unbelievable what some people will do to children.
I asked the then DCI Bob McLachlan, who was head of the unit—a relatively small one, which was a fraction of what it is now—a stupid question. I asked him if he could give me a wild guess about how many active paedophiles there were in England. This was 20 years ago, before the internet really got hold of it, and he said that there were enough active paedophiles in this country to have one for every street. He also said that 20% of them were female. Half of that 20% were females working with males, but the other 10% were females working without males. That has since changed—not the percentages, necessarily, but the numbers—because of the internet.
The biggest basic ground-level step, along the lines of protecting children proactively, was the 2003 anti-grooming legislation. It was a big step; we were the first country to do it, and it has been mimicked across the world.
I know a senior barrister who has worked on a considerable number of high-profile child-protection cases, both as a prosecutor and defender. She said to me, after a glass of wine, that these individuals are the slipperiest, most devious liars she has ever met. It must  be expected that what is colloquially known as the “sex offenders list”—there is no actual list that we can look at, but that is the way that the papers put it—means that these individuals will try to get around the system.
They take jobs because the job is secondary to the primary thing they want to do, which is to abuse children. Many have tried to change addresses, and we had to change the law several times to overcome that difficulty. Many of them have got around, for a while, the attempts by the police or probation officers to inspect, but we changed that loophole.
Today, we are looking at another loophole that we can change. If the Minister, for whatever reason, is not going to take forward the ten-minute rule Bill, he can do what happened before we brought in the legislation on grooming. He can put together a small team to look at the problem and come forward, quickly, with legislation that is acceptable to the Department, and to us, to close that loophole. That is what David Blunkett did.

Sarah Champion: My hon. Friend was one of the first Members to speak to me about the risks that paedophiles, in particular, present to society. Does he agree that the biggest flaw in the legislation around changing names by deed poll is that it is entirely based on the honour and honesty of the sex offender to give the correct details to the current scheme? That is the loophole that we have to close.

Paul Beresford: I completely agree. Putting honesty and these individuals together is an almighty clash; they do not match.
David Blunkett set up a small team in the Home Office to look at the child protection legislation in 2003, and he asked me to join that small team, along with a man called DCI Dave Marshall. As we were starting to look at this, there was a terrible case in which an individual in London had rung a telephone number advertised in Texas. He asked, when the phone was answered, if they could provide him with a five-year-old child for sex. The Texan said, “Come on over; sure we can.” The individual said, “I can’t come over. Can you give me the number of somebody in London?” The Texan cop—because it was a sting—said, “Yes,” and gave the number of the Met police paedophile unit, fortunately.
When the individual rang there, the unit said, “Yes, we’ll provide you with a five-year-old child,” and, of course, when he knocked on the door, expecting a five-year-old child, he got a 6-foot-something police officer, who arrested him. But, the big problem was that they did not know for sure what legislation could be used to prosecute the individual, because he had not seen a child, had not touched a child, and so on. That is where we went back and came up with the grooming legislation.
There is now an opportunity for a loophole, and the paedophiles will constantly look for loopholes, but a loophole can be changed. I hope that, if the ten-minute rule Bill is not acceptable, the Minister will set up a small team of competent people, with both sides of the House represented, as well as police, officials and lawyers, to come up with something quickly to shut down the loophole, because it will be abused. I suspect that—as I have found when dealing with this type of legislation—the people who will avidly read the Hansard report of the debate will be paedophiles, and that some who had not  thought of changing their names will now think of doing so and of using and abusing the loophole. Our children are too precious; we have to look after them. I want my grandchildren to be safe.

Wera Hobhouse: I congratulate the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) on securing this important debate—I supported her application—and I thank the Backbench Business Committee for granting it. There is cross-party support for tackling this issue. Although I might repeat some of the things that have been said, I want to add my voice to this important debate and support the victims of the terrible crimes that are committed because of a legal loophole, which we in Parliament can fix.
The stories of crimes committed by sex offenders who have changed their names should be a wake-up call for us all. The current name-change process is very poorly regulated and not fit for purpose. Although it is a crime for a sex offender to change their name without notifying the police, the onus to do so lies solely with the offender. As we have already heard, thinking that those guys are going to be honourable and honest is just a mistake. We should not let them get away with it. That creates a legal loophole that makes the reporting system unreliable, meaning that a sex offender can obtain a new legal document to hide their identity and evade justice. The loopholes are used deliberately by sex offenders to continue committing their crimes. That must stop.
I commend Della Wright for her courageous campaigning to close the loophole. It undercuts so much of the progress that we have made in tackling sex offences if perpetrators can just wipe out their past. It renders the sex offenders register, the domestic violence disclosure scheme and DBS checks totally ineffective. Sex offenders should not elude the authorities.
One sex offender changed his name after his release from prison following convictions for sexual assaults against children. His background went undetected despite two encounters with Lincolnshire police and one with social services, and he went on to brutally strip and murder 13-year-old Sandy Hadfield. What a terrible tragedy. Another registered sex offender was able to change his name by deed poll. He moved to Spain, became a teacher and worked as a live-in au pair, despite being barred from working with children. He was arrested only after the school found hidden cameras in its toilets. Where were the checks?
As chair of the all-party parliamentary group on prevention of childhood trauma, I am aware of the lifelong consequences faced by children who have experienced sexual abuse. Many children carry their traumatic experiences into later life. I want to acknowledge the people sitting in the Public Gallery who have faced those terrible traumas. Those who experience childhood trauma are twice as likely to develop depression and three times as likely to develop anxiety disorders. Again, we must commend all survivors of childhood trauma for the courage and strength with which they continue to live their lives. It is a stain on our country that one in six children has been sexually abused. We need to protect children, and closing the loophole will make it harder for dangerous sex offenders to repeat their crimes.
Ultimately, there is an issue in the wider criminal justice system. Charges were brought in only 4% of recorded rape cases last year. It is highly likely that people who have committed such a crime are walking among us without our knowing. Five women in six do not report their rape to the police. Given that so many survivors of sexual and domestic violence are denied justice, is it any surprise that reporting rates continue to be so low? If we want to encourage women to come forward, they need to be sure that violent and abusive perpetrators are brought and will continue to be brought to justice. It is horrifying to think that even if a woman gets her rapist convicted, they may still escape the consequences and go on to commit a horrific crime after changing their name.
Enabling sex offenders to change their names means that they can lie about their past. The Safeguarding Alliance reports that offenders have used name changes to hide their backgrounds from their new partners and children. I cannot imagine the fear of learning that your partner is not who you thought they were. The lack of a joined-up approach to tackling name changes means that key details of an offender’s past can be missed. There should be a national centralised sex offenders register maintained by the Home Office to ensure an interlinked and joined-up approach is taken to sex offender management. We must place responsibility for name changes on the relevant authorities to ensure that offenders are not able to slip under the radar.
I, too, welcome the Safeguarding Alliance’s proposal of a tagging system for sex offenders’ passports and driving licences, which would stop offenders using official documents to escape justice. Sex offenders should not be able to use new names to secure DBS checks that allow them to work with children and vulnerable people. As we have heard, they do that deliberately, using a job to get to children, young people and, indeed, women, to commit their heinous crimes. There must be a system in which their crimes are flagged when they are applying for employment.
We must take our obligations to victims seriously. We cannot say that we have delivered justice for survivors if the perpetrators are left to secretly carry on their crimes. Abuse never leaves its victims, so sex offenders should never be able to walk away from their crimes in a way that leaves them free to commit new appalling crimes.

Tonia Antoniazzi: My huge thanks go to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for bringing this important subject to the Chamber and to national prominence—her role in this has been extraordinary. I also thank women such as Della who have waived their anonymity to expose the serious failures in the DBS system, and to ensure that the law is changed to keep people safe.
As colleagues will no doubt have seen in their constituencies, most people’s reaction to hearing about this loophole is one of utter disbelief—disbelief that simple changes, such as the deed poll asking if the applicant has a criminal record, have not been made; disbelief that a system that so many of them have encountered—anywhere from their children’s school to local sports clubs—features such a fundamental flaw; and disbelief that, despite years of warning from campaigners, the name change loophole still exists and is treated as an administrative headache, not a serious risk.
I take this opportunity to highlight a concern that the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) and the hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) have already mentioned. Good intentions have not been balanced with the risk of leaving another avenue to be exploited and that is so dangerous. The DBS grants enhanced privacy rights to individuals who change their gender when changing their identity. Those are exceptional rights that are granted only to individuals from that group. The result is that identity verification is compromised, meaning that there is no guarantee that the information returned during the check and displayed on the certificate will be accurate or complete.
Those exceptional privacy rights also allow an applicant who has changed gender to request that all their previous names are withheld from the DBS certificate that is issued. That right to conceal previous identities is not given to anyone else: disclosing previous identities is a key component of safeguarding, and DBS certificates issued to all other individuals display all other names that the applicant has used.
Applicants who change their gender are also permitted to conceal their sex, and the DBS certificate issued will display their acquired gender instead. That right is not granted to any other individual: the importance of sex to safeguarding means that the sex of all other applicants is always displayed. There cannot be any exceptions in safeguarding. For the system to work, it must apply the same standards to everyone. Sadly, it is simply naive to think that loopholes in the system will not be exploited.
The system relies on the honesty of sex offenders to ensure that it functions as it should, but as the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said, they are not to be trusted; they are not honest. Data obtained by the BBC from police forces highlights just how flawed this approach is. Between 2019 and 2021, more than 5,500 offences were committed by sex offenders of failing to comply with notification requirements: offences such as not telling the police they were living in a household with a child. The Disclosure and Barring Service found that 2,190 applicants for checks had criminal records and had supplied incorrect or missed out personal details such as past names or aliases. A total of 6,740 prosecutions began over the past three financial years for offences by sex offenders of breaches of a sexual harm prevention order or interim order. The system is broken and we must fix it. We have plenty of damning evidence as to why we should.
After being released from prison only three years into his six-year sentence for indecent assault, following a string of sexual assault convictions against children, Timothy Cuffy changed his name to Timothy Barnett. His new name allowed him to hide his criminal past, including from his new partner and three children. As Timothy Barnett, he answered the door to 13-year-old Sandy Hadfield, who knocked looking for her friend. After giving her vodka, he lured her to a quiet area of the woods, where he attempted to have sex with her before slitting her throat. Owing to his name change, his background went undetected, even after two encounters with Lincolnshire police and one encounter with social services. A system that means a convicted child sex offender is not identified, despite encounters with the police and social services, is one that is fundamentally broken and that led to the most tragic of outcomes in that case.
Sex offenders are not just changing their name post trial to hide their convictions; they are also changing their name at trial, or just before, to protect their name on their birth certificate. That has been highlighted in the high-profile case of Department for International Development worker Peter Davis, who became James Robert Harris before trial, allowing him to keep all records of his birth name clean should he decide to use it again.
This loophole gives sex offenders and abusers, many of whom rely on their ability to manipulate in order to carry out their crimes, an opportunity to hide their criminal history and pass the very checks that are meant to keep the most vulnerable safe. This loophole renders not only the DBS redundant but the domestic violence disclosure scheme, the sex offenders register and the child sex offender disclosure scheme. It seems absurd that we are discussing this 20 years on from the Bichard inquiry, which identified that the ability of serial predator Ian Huntley to change his name by deed poll to Ian Nixon, successfully severing the link with his existing police records, meant that no alarms were raised, and he was employed as a school caretaker. That this loophole still exists, allowing—indeed, enabling—serial predators to create new identities, is a scandal.
We are in this place to be legislators. We are in this place to make decisions and to ask the questions, “What if?” and “How?” We have to safeguard the most vulnerable people in society from these bad actors in all legislation. I pay tribute to everybody in the Gallery today and my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham for her outstanding work on this issue.

Nigel Evans: I call the SNP spokesperson to wind up the debate.

Allan Dorans: Thank you, and good afternoon, Mr Deputy Speaker. I congratulate and thank the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for securing this important debate and making excellent points on the scale and seriousness of this problem. I thank the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) for sharing the horrific case of her constituent, Joanna; my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) for highlighting the serious safeguarding issues; and the hon. Members for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher), for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker), for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) and for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) for their important and eloquent contributions.
I speak in support of the motion. The fact that someone convicted of a sexual offence may change their name by deed poll to conceal their previous offending history without committing an offence shows that there is an extremely obvious and serious loophole in current legislation. The introduction of new legislation would serve as a strong deterrent to those minded to change their name by deed poll and would provide additional protection for communities, in particular women and girls, who are most likely to be subject to these serious offences.
This is an important issue for all our constituents. Some 37,400 people across the United Kingdom, including 151 people in my constituency of Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock, recently signed a petition to Parliament to revoke the right of registered sex offenders to change their name by deed poll.
Registered sex offenders are currently managed by the police and multi-agency public protection arrangements in all police force areas. Tough checks and a range of legislative measures are available to the police to manage known sex offenders living in the community. However, information received from the Safeguarding Alliance through a freedom of information request revealed that, between 2017 and 2020, at least 913 sex offenders were missing. Those freedom of information figures relate only to those who have notified or have been caught for failure to notify. The figures do not account for the many more registered sex offenders who may be living and working with children and vulnerable adults using a new name and identity. Every one of those registered sex offenders who is missing has the potential to reoffend, and every effort must be made to trace them as a matter of urgency before they have the opportunity to commit further serious sexual offences.
Only 17 police services out of 43 in England and Wales have replied to that extremely important freedom of information request from the Safeguarding Alliance. The limited information available suggests that the total number of registered sex offenders who are missing is likely to be at least several thousand more. It is very concerning and unacceptable that the Safeguarding Alliance only received replies from 17 police services. The failure to respond by 26 police services should be brought to the attention of His Majesty’s inspectorate of constabulary and fire and rescue services. If we do not know the extent of the problem, we cannot legislate for it.
In the controversial Soham murders case more than 20 years ago, the killer Ian Huntley changed his name by deed poll to apply for a school janitor post, but Humberside police failed to check his record fully. I do not intend to repeat what has been said by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edinburgh South West and others about the murders of Holly Wells and Jessica Chapman in Soham. However, the greatest risk to the public is those convicted of serious sexual offences and placed on the sex offenders register who simply change their name without going through the formalities of changing their name by deed poll.
One extreme example of that is Peter Tobin, a Scottish serial killer with convictions for the serious sexual assault and rape of two 14-year-old girls in England, for which he was sentenced in 1994 to 14 years in prison. He was released in 2004. In 2006, using the false name of Pat McLaughlin, Tobin obtained work as a church handyman in Glasgow, where he murdered 23-year-old Polish student Angelika Kluk and buried her body under the floor of the church. During the subsequent investigation into Tobin’s past, he was convicted of murdering two further young women. He has also been linked to several unsolved disappearances, the murder of several women and young girls and numerous serious sexual assaults throughout the country.
The important point I wish to make is that Tobin is known to have used at least 40 different names and stayed at numerous addresses. He avoided complying with the conditions of notifying Police Scotland and other police services throughout the country when he changed his name and address, which he was required to do, having been placed on the sex offenders register following his conviction in 1994. This illustrates the  dangers of sex offenders changing their name by deed poll or otherwise to conceal their true identity, as they pose a significant risk to the public. The tracing, identification and prosecution of these individuals must remain an absolute priority for police services across the country.
In conclusion, I fully understand that there will be circumstances in which an individual previously convicted of sex offences wishes to change their name legally by deed poll with the genuine hope of a fresh start and a new identity. However, if a change in legislation were to prevent just one person from being the subject of a serious sexual assault or worse, it would be totally justified as another measure to keep people safe, particularly women and girls. Such a measure may be controversial—it may be criticised as excessive by some, and considered by others to be a restriction or reduction of their human rights. However, this loophole is a serious flaw in the current legislation; the legislation is not fit for purpose at this time, and must be changed. The duty of this House and all of us in it is to protect people and keep them safe. I therefore offer my full support to closing the loophole, and to any subsequent Bill to prevent registered sex offenders from changing their name by deed poll.

Jess Phillips: I, like everybody else, rise to give huge and enormous credit to my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham. I will not say her name, because protocol does not allow it, but there is an element of nominative determinism about her name in these instances. She truly is a great Champion, alongside the Safeguarding Alliance, and has once again ensured that Della’s name rings out in this place. I love to hear from my hon. Friend at all times, both inside this Chamber and outside of it, but I would like not to have to hear from her again on this issue—no offence to her. Let today be the end of these demands.
If we were to do one of those fancy word clouds based on today’s debate, I feel that “no-brainer” is the word that would pop out biggest. It seems absolutely phenomenal that after 20 years, we are still in this position. To talk through some of today’s contributions, the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) told us about the very important case of Joanna in which her perpetrator, Clive Bundy, changed his name. The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh South West (Joanna Cherry) and my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) talked about a very serious potential safeguarding loophole in certain cases, where it is not just a name change consideration—where there is an advanced level of secrecy with regard to the DBS. Again, going back to the word cloud of this debate, another phrase would be “safeguarding has to come first”. There is nothing else; there is no other priority.
Following on from the Scottish National party Front Bencher, the hon. Member for Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock (Allan Dorans), I could not agree more that the line here is the safeguarding of children and vulnerable people. That is the line; that is the most important thing; that is the starting point, not the end point. It should be the primary concern, and we must do everything we possibly can to ensure that that is the case. The fact that Ian Huntley’s name was able to ring out across this Chamber so many times today is a harsh reminder of how many years this has been in train.
This Chamber has a long tradition of the constituency of Bolsover being represented in a plain-speaking fashion, should we say; one that does not mince words. Today, that fine tradition was honoured by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mark Fletcher)—I look forward to his contributions at the first King’s Speech. His brave and certain questioning of the Government’s speed, some of the responses they have given, and how robust they claim the law is was refreshing to hear; long may that plain speaking continue. In the hon. Gentleman’s speech, he said that it seems unbelievable that the rights of a perpetrator often trump the rights of a victim. I am here to tell this Chamber and the world that that is true in almost all cases, whether of rape or of domestic abuse, just by the very fact that a perpetrator has legal counsel and support. A victim of a crime is merely evidence in a case—that is it. That is what it feels like to be a victim; certainly for children, it is a very hollow feeling when they are asked to give evidence and take part in these cases for years and years.
Let me give an example. Last night, I went to an event around the case of Joanna Simpson, a woman murdered—sorry, unlawfully killed—whose perpetrator was found guilty of manslaughter, regardless of the fact that he had prepared a grave for her months before. He is due to be released after 13 years of incarceration for her unlawful killing. He knows exactly where her family live, but they are not allowed to know where he will be released to, not even on a regional basis. That is the case for people who suffer sexual crimes: they have absolutely no right to know anything. It is just a fundamental flaw.

Mark Fletcher: I referred earlier to a piece of constituency casework that relates very much to that point. The constituents who have inspired me to be involved in this conversation are desperate for the clarity of knowing the new name of the offender involved, but they are unable to get it. The answers from His Majesty’s Prison Service are hilarious, and I cannot fathom why this is acceptable. I have written to the Minister for clarification on whether HMPS is upholding the regulations correctly, but I support the point that the hon. Lady is making— I entirely agree with her.

Jess Phillips: It seems baffling. I think that if we were to go and speak to anybody on the Clapham omnibus—if we were to go outside and speak to any member of the public—they would not believe that that is the case in most circumstances. They would be absolutely horrified.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree (Paula Barker) called on Home Office Front Benchers to publish the documents, something that we have heard again and again in this House. It is not acceptable that, although my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), our great champion, has forced those documents and that assessment and review to exist, Members in this place cannot see them. I join in those calls from my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Wavertree.
I pay particular tribute to the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford), because he has been trying to tackle this issue in this place since, I think, the year I was born. [Hon. Members: “Ouch!”] I realise that that sounds like a terribly backhanded compliment, but it is not intended that way at all—when he was citing some of those cases, I was thinking, “I was five then.” He has  announced his departure from this place, and he will undoubtedly be remembered for championing the rights of children during his time in this House, specifically those who have suffered from sexual offences. The fact that the legislation on paedophilia that we are all familiar with did not necessarily exist all those years ago, but now exists, is in no small part down to the hon. Gentleman’s work in this place. He is absolutely right to point out that these offenders are manipulative: in the case of Joanna Simpson, which I highlighted, the reason why a manslaughter charge was given rather than a murder charge was the adjustment disorder caused by a divorce—that was the manipulation used. It is terribly hard to adjust to divorce, and almost everybody in the country who has to do that ends up murdering somebody— I don’t think.
There is that level of manipulation, and how our state agencies in fact back that manipulation up. There is an opportunity today, by supporting this motion, to stop some of that manipulation and to stand in its way. The hon. Member for Bath (Wera Hobhouse) reminded us why this issue matters, its importance, the lifelong trauma suffered by the victims of these crimes and how we should never forget that. There are victims here today, and many of their names have rung out. If only all the victims, such as Sandy, who was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), could be here today to listen to this debate. It is not okay that things have taken this long.
I will finish up my remarks. Like the hon. Member for Bolsover, I also changed my name. I did it online. I went online and I changed my name, and a woman called Angela in my office just signed it—that was it. That was what it took. I paid £36. It is probably more now, as inflation has gone up since then. It took absolutely no effort whatever to change my name. It was considerably easier than getting a driving licence or applying for other things. It was very easy for me to change my name with no effort and no check whatever, so I know how easy the process is. We have to make sure that this easy liberty —I am not saying it should not be easy for me, although I was stunned by how easy it was—which I may very well be entitled to, is used with caution, if at all, in the case of those on the sex offenders register. It should certainly never ever be able to be used without the proper processes and systems that flag things up.

Wera Hobhouse: I, too, have changed my name—to make it shorter, to be honest; my name was too difficult. Does the hon. Member agree that we would be happy to go through a more complicated process if that would protect and safeguard young people?

Jess Phillips: I agree. I would have been more than happy to undertake a much more robust process to change my name from the good Northern Irish name of Trainor to Phillips. It would have been no bother to me if it had taken a lot more effort. Many other things in life take a lot more effort when they should not.

Mark Fletcher: I am sorry for interrupting the hon. Member again, and I am grateful to her for taking a second intervention. There is an advantage in some cases for the ease of changing a name, particularly through the unenrolled process, which is for domestic abuse victims. I neglected to mention it, and I am glad that the opportunity has arisen. In some cases there is  advantage in not doing the enrolled process, and in the ease with which it happens, and we do not want to affect that. I am sure she would agree on that point.

Jess Phillips: I do agree with the hon. Member on that, and it throws up another anomaly in the system. I have worked with many domestic abuse victims, who have tried desperately to not be able to be found, yet, our state systems, whether that be our family court system or our criminal court system, are willy-nilly giving out details of people against their safeguarding and their request. Once again, it feels like the onus is on the victim to protect themselves and we, as a state, are protecting the perpetrator. The balance is off.
I want to ask the Government directly what action the Home Office is taking to identify the hundreds—if not thousands; as has been identified, we expect it to be far more—who have gone missing. What assessment have the Government done of reoffending in that group? Funnily enough, I asked about reoffending rates and assessments that the Home Office was doing in cases of court delays, where people accused of sexual offences against children or adults are waiting years and years. I wanted to understand what measures were being put in place to ensure that reoffending was not happening in cases waiting for three or four years to get to court. That came across my desk because of a multiple child abuse case, where the victims had been waiting five years for their court date, and it was then put off for another year. They will be adults, incidentally, when they sit in the court room. It was found that the perpetrator in that case was living with children. The House might not be surprised to hear that he had not notified anybody.
I asked the Home Office what assessment was being done of reoffending in this space and I also asked the Ministry of Justice. I did get an answer: they are not doing an assessment of that reoffending. I find that harrowing. Where is the independent review looking into this issue and the management of sex offenders, which was, as we have all said, commissioned a year ago?
I will close my remarks by saying that if we want to know about the offender management that exists in this country, let alone whether it is robust, we need only read any of what HMICFRS—all those letters; we changed it to a ridiculously long name—has written about probation and police forces in this country and the level of reoffending in the groups we are talking about today. We should be under no illusion: safeguarding is not being achieved.

Sarah Dines: I start by thanking the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) for her work on this important issue and for securing the debate. I welcome those in the Public Gallery and those listening at home, and I thank the Safeguarding Alliance for all its work. To each and every person who has been sexually abused, be they male, female, young, old, children or adults, I say that the Government do take it seriously.
I reassure Members that we recognise their concerns. It was amusing to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) say that junior Ministers come and go. Of course she is right—we do—but in the short  time I am here, I want to make sure that I make a difference on this issue. I have some experience in this field from a job I held previously, and what is salient for me is looking into the eyes of somebody who has been abused, or those of their mother, brother, relative or friend. It is horrendous. These crimes are heinous, and the Government must do more to crack down on those who perpetrate them.
As safeguarding Minister, I reassure the House that I am committed to ensuring that we have the most robust system possible for managing registered sex offenders. While a lot of criticism is made of the system for good reason, it is salient that we are still considered, as my hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) said, to be one of the most stringent countries in the world for the management of sexual offenders, not least because of the sterling work that people in this House have done. But it is not enough, and more has to be done.
It may assist the House if I set out some of the general background in this area. I know that some here will have heard this before, but for those listening at home and for the record, I will turn to the specific concerns regarding registered sex offenders and name changes. Members will be aware that registered sex offenders are required to notify the police of certain personal details. This system is often referred to as the sex offenders register and it applies automatically to those offenders who receive a conviction or caution for a sexual offence. They are required to provide their local police station with a record of, among other things, their name, address, date of birth, bank details and national insurance number, and that must be done annually and, importantly, whenever their details change. That means that registered sex offenders are legally required to inform the police if they change their name. Offenders who are subject to notification requirements are also required to notify the police of all travel outside the United Kingdom. Breach of the notification requirements, including failure to provide notification of a name change, is a criminal offence punishable by up to five years in prison.
We know that some individuals pose a risk beyond that which can be properly managed by a straightforward notification requirement. We also know that there are individuals who come to the police’s attention and pose a risk, but who have not been convicted of an offence. The Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014 reformed the civil orders available to the police on application to the court to manage those risks. It introduced sexual harm prevention orders, which can be applied to anyone convicted or cautioned for a sexual or violent offence; and sexual risk orders, which can be applied to any individual who poses a risk of sexual harm, even if they have never been convicted. Those orders have been deliberately designed to be as flexible as possible so that they can be tailored to the specific risk an individual poses. They can be used to impose any restriction the court considers necessary to protect the public from sexual harm, which can include restrictions on the ability of the individual who is subject to the order to change their name—something that should be used more frequently, in my view. For both orders, breach is a criminal offence punishable by a maximum of five years’ imprisonment.
Moving on to recent changes, registered sex offenders have committed some of the most abhorrent crimes and we must ensure that our approach mitigates the risk of their seeking to exploit weaknesses in the system. Following proposals from the National Police Chiefs’ Council based  on feedback from operational policing on how things can be improved, which the police always have an eye to, we have made changes to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022. It is now the case that through both SHPOs and SROs, the courts can impose positive obligations as well as restrictions, including requiring an offender to engage in a behavioural change programme. That is totally new and it has helped in some cases. None of these things will be a panacea, but they do assist. The court must also apply the lower civil standard of proof—namely, the balance of probabilities—which will lead to an increase in such orders being made.
The Secretary of State has a new power to prepare a list of countries deemed to be at high risk of child sex abuse by UK nationals or residents. That list has to be considered by applicants and the courts when applying for or making an order for the purpose of protecting children outside the UK from the risk of sexual harm.
In addition, to ensure that the police, His Majesty’s Prison and Probation Service and others have the right systems in place to share information on registered sex offenders and other dangerous individuals, the Home Office and Ministry of Justice are investing in a new multi-agency public protection system—MAPPS. The new system will enable more effective and automated information sharing, which will, in turn, improve the risk management of all offenders managed under multi-agency public protection arrangements.

Sarah Champion: I believe that many Members are aware of the legislation and restrictions that are being outlined. Does the Minister believe that they are robust enough when a sex offender chooses to ignore them?

Sarah Dines: The hon. Lady raises a good point. I never believe that any system designed to protect children and adults—be they men or women, boys or girls— is ever robust enough. There is always a way for a deceptive, calculating perpetrator to get round it. It is not enough for a Government to say, “We’ve done something, which is great.” The Government have to be conscious not to just park that on the side, but to constantly look to the next reform. I hope we can work together to achieve that spirit. To give more context, it is planned that MAPPS will replace the violent and sex offender register—ViSOR—next year.
I turn to the issue of name changes, and some of the good and interesting points raised by Members. I recognise and understand the concerns hon. Members have raised, and I reassure them that this Government and I take these issues seriously. Public protection is and will remain our utmost, foremost priority. I have already outlined the legislative measures that we have put in place, but there is, of course, more that can be done.
There are safeguards built in at an operational level, such as through His Majesty’s Passport Office, which has a watchlist to provide some protection for the public in the passport issuing process. That includes supporting the police in managing offenders of concern, including registered sex offenders, and to prevent those who pose a high risk of harm from obtaining a passport in a new name without the police first being consulted. We also have arrangements in place for the police to notify the Passport Office and other relevant bodies of individuals who pose a risk to the public to ensure that we properly control name changes in those cases.

Jess Phillips: I notice that the Minister mentioned “high risk of harm”, which is often up for debate in these issues. Does she agree that all sex offenders pose a high risk of harm?

Sarah Dines: Indeed, all domestic abuse and sex offenders are high risk, which is why, of course, domestic abuse has now been included in the police strategic issues.
As I have set out, we do have safeguards built in. It is important that operational decisions are made in a way that ensures resources are deployed where they will be most effective in mitigating risk. As hon. Members will appreciate, I cannot go into detail about some of the intricacies in this field as, of course, we do not want to give people extra ideas—there are operational sensitivities. As with any matters related to public protection, we must always remain vigilant and front-footed to ensure our approach is as effective as possible.
The issue of name changes has been discussed by the hon. Member for Rotherham and others. The Government have listened to those concerns, as have I, and I am undertaking work to see what more can be done. We know that there is the internal review.

Mary Glindon: As has been said, disclosing previous identities is a key component of safeguarding. What can be done under the sensitive applications route to prevent sex offenders who change their identity from exercising their right to have previous names withheld from a DBS certificate?

Sarah Dines: I am grateful for that intervention. This is an area that I am particularly interested in, as it poses a conflict of competing interests: that of the person who has had a serious offence perpetrated against them, and that of someone who wants to move on in their life for perhaps bona fide—not necessarily nefarious—reasons. There are competing legal interests that need careful thought, and I am looking into that.

Lucy Allan: I thank the Minister for her response. Will she please work closely with the victims Minister, my right hon. Friend the Member for Charnwood (Edward Argar), who is sitting next to her today? He is somebody of great integrity who commands respect across the House. With the Home Office and the Ministry of Justice working together, I know that this problem can be solved. Will the Minister please confirm that?

Sarah Dines: If I may say so, I have been afforded the utmost professionalism and courtesy by colleagues in the Ministry of Justice. It has been very helpful. We are working on this matter together; we were discussing it just yesterday.

Mark Fletcher: I thank the Minister for accepting the intervention. I admit that she is on a slightly sticky wicket today. I know that she personally cares passionately about the issues we are discussing. We have mentioned the robust system and not wanting to give people ideas. However, I return to the amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion) to the Police, Crime, Sentencing and Courts Act 2022 and the review that was meant to be published. Will the Minister commit to at least some of us in this House being able   to see that review? We will still not know the scale of the problem until we have seen that. I would welcome the Minister’s commitment to letting at least some of us see it.

Sarah Dines: The review is now complete and I am carefully considering the findings. There are some immediate actions that can be taken, including work to ensure that law enforcement partners are fully utilising and monitoring the tools, information and resources available, such as those provided by the Passport Office. As hon. Members will understand, some of it is very sensitive. However, I am currently considering it with the Home Secretary.
In addition to the internal review, there is lots of work being done. The former Home Secretary appointed Mick Creedon, a former chief constable of Derbyshire constabulary, to undertake an independent review into sex offender management more generally.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Sarah Dines: I will make a little more progress before giving way.

Paula Barker: On that specific point, will the Minister give way?

Sarah Dines: Very briefly, then.

Paula Barker: I thank the Minister for giving way; she has been very generous with her time. As legislators in this place, we have a privileged position in representing our constituents, and we are subject to the highest scrutiny and security. Will the Minister therefore agree that the review should be shared in full with every Member of the House?

Sarah Dines: I very much believe in open transparency, but there must always be checks when things are so sensitive that it would not be of assistance.

Jess Phillips: Will the Minister give way?

Sarah Dines: I want to make a bit of progress, but I am very happy to talk about it. I have given way a few times, but I would be interested in taking up any further discussions outside the Chamber.
Serious issues have been raised in relation to name changes and changes of gender. An individual who is transgender and has a criminal history is subject to the same monitoring, rules and checks as any other offender. That is the case regardless of whether they have a gender recognition certificate. A change of name resulting from a change of gender does not relieve the registered sex offender from their notification requirements. Regardless of the route used, everyone applying for a DBS for a criminal record certificate must follow the same identity validation process to demonstrate their current identity. This includes the requirement to provide at least one document previously issued by the Government in the current identity, or consent to providing fingerprints. The DBS sensitive applications route allows transgender applicants, including those who self-identify, to provide their full previous identity information to the DBS, while not disclosing that to a prospective employer or having it printed on their DBS certificate.
There is more to do in this area. I am very interested in this area, with the competing rights of such individuals and those who need protection, and I am looking at this. For applications via this route, the DBS additionally seeks to see a name change deed poll or a separate signed self-declaration to formally record the link between the current name and the identity that is to be protected. An application will also be checked against both male and female genders within the system.

Joanna Cherry: The Minister is absolutely right that there are conflicting rights here, but when rights conflict we have to carry out a weighing exercise, and we are talking about sex offenders here—people with a proven track record of abusing children and vulnerable people—so there is really no competition in that situation.

Sarah Dines: I am delighted to agree with the hon. and learned Lady, and that is part of my balancing exercise. Sometimes there is lazy government, where the Government think something is sorted out, we have granted a right or a legal right, and we do not need to do any more. However, we do need to look at how things change, at new legislative changes and at the competition between rights, and I am thoroughly interested in that point.
That is why, for example, a blanket ban—I know the hon. Member for Rotherham is not suggesting that today, although it was suggested yesterday—is perhaps a distinction without too much of a difference, because we all want the same thing. A blanket ban preventing sexual offenders from changing their name is at risk of a court finding it to be discriminatory, unreasonable or disproportionate by focusing on all past offending regardless of the level of danger posed by the individual to the public and ignoring their rights.
What is often cited is that there are good and proper reasons for offenders to change their name. It is often cited that there are implications under the Equality Act 2010 or the Gender Recognition Act 2004, and perhaps more importantly, the European convention on human rights, in relation to the right to a private life. This is where we get into the legal complexity of why successive Governments do not always grapple with that problem. I am determined to have a go at it, with the assistance of everybody in this Chamber.

Joanna Cherry: The Minister is being very generous in taking another intervention. The argument that preventing sex offenders from taking advantage of a process of self-identification of gender to hide their identity somehow breaches the European convention on human rights was put forward in the vexed debate over self-identification in Scotland, and I can tell her that it was widely rubbished by many legal commentators. Will she look into it more carefully, rather than just taking at face value what many of us think is the baseless assertion that such a measure would breach human rights?

Sarah Dines: I was not putting these points forward as my views; I was saying that they are often cited as an issue. What we need is a thorough overhaul and to look at how, within a lawful existing framework, we can move forward. I am delighted to say that this is an area I am working on, but the hon. and learned Lady is absolutely right that more needs to be done. The present system, while one of the most robust regimes—if not  the most robust regime—in the world, is in my view not quite going far enough, and we need to look at it again. We need to protect members of our society, and as the safeguarding Minister, I take that job very seriously.
In closing, I would like to thank hon. Members for the important points they made during their speeches. I hope I have provided some reassurance that we do have tools that assist in managing the risk of sex offenders, but I do accept and concede that there is always more work to be done. I look up at the Public Gallery as I say that, and I thank those who are there for coming to listen to this.
None the less, the Government can never be complacent. Along with the good things we do, we need to do more. I am shortly to meet the national policing lead for the management of sexual and violent offenders, Chief Constable Michelle Skeer, who has national policing responsibility for sex offender management. I want to look more at what ideas she has and what ideas we can all have together across Government, and indeed across the Opposition, to assist.
As I have made clear, public protection and safety is our No. 1 priority, and we are committed to ensuring that the police and other agencies have more and better tools to assist them to more effectively manage registered sex offenders. In a nutshell, a lot has been done, but there is more to do. We need more joined-up systems, and I am going to try to do my little bit in my short time to address these issues.

Nigel Evans: And the final word goes to everyone’s champion on this issue—Sarah Champion.

Sarah Champion: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker. I thank the Minister for her encouraging words and I really look forward to working with her to close this gaping loophole. I also thank every Member who has spoken today, and all those who could not be here but are very supportive of this. I thank the Backbench Business Committee for allowing us to have this debate. This is not a political issue, but a cross-party safeguarding issue, and I thank everybody for entering the debate on those terms.
The problem we have is that we are currently reliant on registered sex offenders doing the right thing and telling the police if they are going to be changing their name, for good reasons or nefarious ones. That system is being breached again and again. With the data we can get, which is very incomplete, we know that approximately 200 registered sex offenders are going missing a year and that 2,000 are being prosecuted for breaches of their requirements. So we know that is a problem. How big does the problem need to be before the Government close this loophole? The first step towards that is publishing the report that the Government have done: both the internal report—I understand the sensitivities, but we can have it in redacted form—and the report that is currently being done, and may have been completed, by Mick Creedon. We need to know the reality of this problem, rather than just having to rely on the incredibly brave survivors to tell us what is really happening on the ground.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered the change of name by registered sex offenders.

Welsh Affairs

Nigel Evans: Before I call Carolyn Harris, may I just say that I hope everybody had a superb Saint David’s Day yesterday? I certainly did; it was wonderful to see the young pupils of Ysgol Gymraeg Y Fenni singing outside No. 10 Downing Street, which was brilliant. I am looking forward later today to going to the American ambassador’s residence, where the Monmouth male voice choir will be singing. Over to you, Carolyn.

Carolyn Harris: I beg to move,
That this House has considered Welsh affairs.
Diolch, Mr Deputy Speaker—thank you. Can I start by saying what an honour it is not just to be opening this Welsh affairs debate in celebration of Saint David’s Day, but indeed to be Welsh? I take great pride in standing up for our little corner of the world, and in representing the city where I was born and raised, and which I am lucky enough to still call my home. I also take great pride in representing Welsh Labour in Swansea East, here at Westminster, and right across the country and beyond.
Some of the most influential MPs to sit on these Benches have done so representing the Labour party in Wales—none more so than Aneurin Bevan, who spearheaded the creation of the NHS; Ann Clwyd, who before the groundbreaking 1997 general election was one of only four women to represent a Welsh constituency; and the fantastic Neil Kinnock, an outstanding Leader of the Opposition for almost a decade, and without doubt the best Prime Minister this country never had. It is a real honour to follow in the steps of such committed and powerful politicians.
I want to use today as an opportunity to step away from politics a little, and to talk about Wales in general. While times are tough for many and the world remains in turmoil, our priority must be to focus on what is best for our communities. The year 2022 was a turbulent one globally, and UK news was dominated by political chaos and the death of our longest ever reigning monarch, Queen Elizabeth II. Her death brought the country together in morning, and brought with it a new era under King Charles III. His accession to the throne meant that we welcomed a new Prince and Princess of Wales, and I would like to take this opportunity, in our first Welsh affairs debate since their appointment, to say how delighted we are to have them.
Earlier this month I visited the headquarters of Peace Mala in my constituency. This multi award-winning project for peace was set up by local schoolteacher Pam Evans in 2001 following the atrocities of 9/11. Across the world, the aftermath of the terrorist attacks led to widespread Islamophobia, and in her school she was witnessing worrying levels of racial prejudice and bullying of Asian and Muslim students, causing real concern. Pam’s simple but effective response was to create a symbolic rainbow bracelet that the young people could make and wear to represent unity, harmony and peace. It reminds wearers that our communities are filled with colour and difference, but that we are all connected.
While meeting with Pam and learning more about how this simple initiative has progressed across the world, she told me about an article she had written  about St David—also, interestingly, the patron saint of Peace Mala—and she kindly shared it with me. As a proud Welsh woman, I naively thought I knew everything there was to know about our patron saint, but I was fascinated to learn so much more about his history, particularly his links to Swansea. A stone altar that he was gifted by the Patriarch of Jerusalem was brought back to Swansea and placed in Llangyfelach, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), just a couple of miles from my constituency.
As we celebrate St David this week, I am especially drawn to his most famous miracle, which is thought to have taken place in the present-day village of Llanddewi Brefi, in the constituency of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake). While speaking to a large crowd, people towards the back were struggling to see and hear him, at which point the ground beneath his feet is said to have opened and risen up to form a small hill, elevating him so that he was easier to see and hear. I am not sure that anyone would struggle to hear me, but I do quite like the idea of the ground opening and elevating me—and I am sure the Secretary of State for Wales would also like to see that.
I take great pride in visiting projects and organisations around my constituency, such as Peace Mala, and in supporting their work and learning about what they are doing to help our communities. Over the last few months I have visited numerous businesses in my constituency and also those of the shadow Secretary of State for Wales, my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), and others to discuss menopause, and I am delighted that so many Welsh organisations and businesses are now stepping up to the plate to provide the right environment for menopausal women, and if they are not providing it now, they are listening to the message and giving consideration to women in their workforce. I have been delighted by the number of massive companies that have contacted me asking for help to devise menopause initiatives. I would love for Swansea, and in fact Wales, to become world leaders for menopause awareness. I would love to work with colleagues across the House to make sure that in all their constituencies the menopause message is delivered to the women who need to hear that we care.
We already have the great advantage in Wales of free access to prescriptions, so women have free hormone replacement therapy. Unfortunately, women in England have had to wait 500 days so far to get anywhere close to where we are in Wales by being able to access an annual prepayment certificate. It would be wonderful if women in England could be in the same position as women in Scotland, Northern Ireland and Wales and have access to free HRT.
I have spoken regularly in this Chamber about my Everyone Deserves campaign, which aims to tackle food poverty and hunger across my constituency and those of others, including my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). Last Christmas we made and delivered over 800 festive hampers and cooked and delivered over 200 Christmas dinners; we deliver them to vulnerable people and to those struggling financially or who are alone—those who need a little more support. We are now preparing for our Easter campaign to ease the burden on families who are currently struggling and to ensure that children across our constituencies get to enjoy a chocolate treat over the Easter break.
But all of this is only possible with support both from those who are able to be there and physically fill the boxes and those who are kind enough to make financial contributions. A couple of years ago, Welsh football legend Gareth Bale stepped in to help, donating £15,000 towards the project. At the height of the covid pandemic, when so many more families than ever before needed our help, this gesture made an enormous difference to our efforts. So as Gareth retires from professional football, after 17 years, I think it is only right that he gets a mention today, not just as one of the greatest wingers of a generation and arguably the best football player ever to wear a Welsh shirt—although I must include Neville Southall as well—but as a true gentleman who has used his platform to help others.
Last Christmas the Everyone Deserves hero was another truly great and talented Welshman: Michael Sheen. I have worked with Michael on numerous projects over the years and, as ever, he got in touch before Christmas to ask what he could do to help. He then proceeded to have a 2023 calendar printed, full of stunning artistic shots of him taken in Margam park in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon, with every penny, which was nigh-on £10,000, being donated to the Everyone Deserves campaign. That enabled us to know we could provide support and help to Welsh families at a time when so many were struggling.
It is not just big celebrities who help, but so too do local heroes, like Mal Pope and Kev Johns and the cast and crew of the Grand Theatre, where the pantomime played twice a day and at the end of every day they passed around a bucket and asked the audience to give something to the Everyone Deserves campaign. At the end of the pantomime’s run they had raised £18,500, which is allowing me to do more work this Christmas, this summer, this easter. And there is the fantastic Valley Rock Voices Welsh women’s choir from all across south Wales, who every week do a raffle and a collection, and are constantly giving us support and money, allowing us to help other people. Without these local heroes and the generosity of the Welsh people in our communities, so many people would be struggling to provide the basics for their families.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making a beautiful and inspiring speech, and I am in awe of her work, particularly with the Everyone Deserves campaign. Does she agree that a particularly wonderful thing about Wales is not only the help in communities for the disadvantaged—I think of the Moorland centre in Splott in my constituency, which helps older people with hot lunches; I draw attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests —but that we do not stop at our borders? Welsh people have always been proudly internationalist; along the road from that centre is the Oasis centre, supported also by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), which assists people fleeing persecution around the world. In Wales, we help our own as well as those who flee to Wales.

Carolyn Harris: Yes, and what makes us unique is that not only do we want to help everyone but we sing while we are doing it.
Last year has been tough for many across Wales. Few will have escaped without feeling the pinch of rising prices in our shops, rocketing fuel bills and the daily  struggle to keep in control of family finances. Every community the length and breadth of our nation is facing the same stark reality, and it is the job of every one of us in Westminster and in the Senedd in Cardiff to do everything in our power to change that.
I look forward to hearing other contributions today; I suspect they will celebrate successes and achievements, and no doubt we will have political banter, and I hope we highlight what is best about Wales. But I say to all colleagues that all of us here who represent Welsh constituencies should be and are proud, and we should make our constituents proud of us. It is our job to represent them, and we need to do our very best to make sure their lives are more tolerable.

Nigel Evans: Diolch yn fawr and congratulations on all your charitable work, Carolyn. Absolutely superb.

Stephen Crabb: What a terrific privilege it is to follow the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who opened this annual debate on Welsh affairs in the very best traditions of the debate. She has never been afraid to work on a bipartisan, cross-party basis. She demonstrated again her values and her genuine desire to improve the communities she represents, and communities more generally across Wales. I add my voice to that of Mr Deputy Speaker a moment ago in commending her for the work she does, particularly at Christmas time with disadvantaged families in her constituency and throughout the Swansea area. It is really tremendous.
Mr Deputy Speaker, thank you for calling me so early in the debate. I wish you, belatedly, a happy St David’s day. I did not get to see you yesterday evening at the Guildhall. Maybe you were there, maybe you were not —who knows? There were so many people there. One distinctive thing about celebrating St David’s day, perhaps in contrast to St Patrick’s Day or Burns night celebrations, although this might just reflect my own narrow experience of those two events celebrated by our Celtic cousins, is that it is first and foremost about children.
In opening the debate, Mr Deputy Speaker, you referred to the schoolchildren who sang yesterday at the entrance of Downing Street when people were going in for the Prime Minister’s St David’s day reception. In New Palace Yard yesterday, Mr Speaker hoisted y ddraig goch, the red dragon flag, at the start of the day. We also had a choir of schoolchildren. It was wonderful. For generations —you will remember it from your own boyhood, Mr Deputy Speaker—wearing a daffodil or a leek, or more recently a rugby shirt or Welsh national costume, has been a part of the Welsh childhood experience. That is one reason why, as much as I want to maximise St David’s day celebrations—I love the way they seem to grow every year, particularly in London—I am not persuaded that St David’s day should be a national holiday. Would the cultural richness of St David’s day be the same if it was a day for children to remain at home? Schools play a tremendous role in nurturing the St David’s day traditions, giving children a sense of Welsh identity. I put on record my thanks, gratitude and respect to teachers, particularly in Pembrokeshire, for the way, in schools across the county, they nurture St David’s day and help to ensure the traditions pass from one generation to another.
For us in Pembrokeshire, St David’s day has a special resonance. He was one of us, reputedly born on a clifftop on the Pembrokeshire coast. The wonderful holy city of St Davids, in the wild and beautiful north-west peninsular of my constituency, ensures that his memory and legacy will live on forever. For any Member who has not had the opportunity to visit St Davids, it is a wonderful city. It is the smallest city in Britain. It is a beautiful, holy, peaceful place to visit. I know, because I bump into them every so often, that various Members have a particular interest in the area around St Davids and they are very, very welcome. They are also welcome to bring more colleagues.
In Westminster, we are in the middle of Wales week, which seems to grow every year—it is almost a month now! One day is not enough to celebrate; we need more time. This year, Wales week in London is bigger, better and louder than ever. I pay tribute to Dan Langford and the team for the way they have grown this series of events. He told me on Monday that this year there are more than 100 events across London for people with Welsh heritage, Welsh people and people with an interest in Wales to come together and learn something new about Wales and to celebrate.
I referred to the amazing event at the Guildhall in the City of London. It was the first time that I had been and it was a joy to be there in that atmosphere. When the anthem was sung, it was a tremendous spiritual moment for us all. At the event, I heard probably the speech—no disrespect to any speech today—of St David’s day this year. Lowri Roberts is the head of women and girls’ football at the Football Association of Wales. I participated in an event with her on Monday for Wales week in London. I heard her speak then and was extremely impressed, but the speech she gave last night was remarkable. She talked about the role of football in our national life in Wales and the way it has changed, particularly in the last 12 months. Football has a special place for women and girls, and we are seeing a huge exponential growth in women and girls’ football in Wales. It was as much a speech for the men and the boys as it was for the women and the girls, because she spoke not just about sport, gender or Wales, but values, social justice and equality.
I often think that sport plays a bigger role in how we project our identity as a nation than perhaps it does for other countries. When I travel internationally, I say that I am from Wales. I meet people who are not necessarily familiar with the slightly complex structure of our United Kingdom family of nations. When I go to north America, I find that they understand Ireland and the Irish national story, and perhaps the Scottish national story, but sometimes the Welsh national story is less well understood. Sport is an incredibly powerful vehicle in helping to tell that story, especially with the values that our footballers, men and women, have shown over the last 12 months. I am talking not just about their success and achievements in qualifying for various tournaments, but how they, and the team of coaches and administrators around them, have conducted themselves on and off the pitch, representing the very best of who we are in Wales and helping us to tell a very positive and strong story about the Welsh nation.
At the start of this year, we in the Welsh Affairs Committee had the great opportunity, over five days, to visit the United States: New York, Washington DC and  Atlanta in Georgia. We were pursuing three inquiries, including how Wales is promoted internationally, particularly in relation to attracting tourism, and the role that Wales plays in delivering net zero and energy security. I want to thank our consul general in New York for facilitating an excellent set of meetings, and our ambassador in Washington, Dame Karen Pierce, for welcoming us to Washington DC. It was a great privilege to present her with a fine bottle of Penderyn whisky.
It was helpful to see the roles played by the UK Government teams and the Welsh Government teams in promoting Wales. I confess that over the years I was one of those people who was a bit sniffy and sceptical about the Welsh Government investing in offices overseas. I have probably been guilty of criticising the Welsh Government for trying to duplicate activities that I thought were rightly the responsibility of UK Government trade or diplomatic teams. What we saw—I hope other members of the Committee agree—was an incredibly strong sense of alignment between the UK Government teams and Welsh Government personnel in trying to further the strategic objectives of promoting the UK and capturing more trade and investment, but the points of difference were really interesting. The teams representing Wales out there, as well as working in very close harmony with their UK counterparts, have an eye on that particular mission to capture something extra for Wales. It was a fascinating visit.

Stephen Doughty: The right hon. Gentleman mentioned sport, but another of the ways in which Wales is making waves in the world is in our creative industries. We have seen particular growth in my constituency. Obviously, we have “Doctor Who”, “His Dark Materials” and others, and fantastic music artists. We have the fantastic Aleighcia Scott—it was kind of the Secretary of State to invite her to be a lead singer at the Lancaster House event this week. Wales is punching above its weight in all the creative industries, particularly music, TV and film.

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. He is exactly right, and I encourage him to follow the output of the Welsh Affairs Committee as we continue our inquiry into broadcasting in Wales. He may have seen a few weeks ago that Netflix chose to use the incredibly important forum of the Committee to announce its investment in its first Welsh-language drama. It is great to see Welsh-language productions from Wales, made in Wales and projecting the Welsh language through new global streaming platforms. It is an opportunity to project Welsh culture and identity, and perhaps a challenge and even a threat to some of the traditional broadcasters. Overall, he alludes to a healthy picture.
I referenced our visit to north America, where there are huge opportunities. I often think that we perhaps make too much of the slightly odd colonial experiment in Patagonia and not enough of the Welsh diaspora that moved to the US, particularly in the late 18th and early 19th century. Welsh people were at the heart of the US industrial revolution experience. When the Welsh Affairs Committee was in Washington in January, we had the opportunity to visit Capitol Hill and were hosted by the Friends of Wales Caucus in Congress.
I thank Congressman Morgan Griffith from Virginia for welcoming us and for the fascinating discussion that we had in his office about the links between our nations.  He has people in his district with strong Welsh heritage, and there are towns and villages in his district and throughout Pennsylvania that bear the names of Welsh towns and villages that we are familiar with. That means that there are opportunities for us. Sometimes, I think that the Irish and Scottish make far more of their diaspora and use it more intelligently to further strategic and economic objectives than we do. We were looking at that as a Committee. I pay tribute to Ty Francis for his work in creating New York Welsh, a diaspora community in New York City, and for his further work to create a network of people with Welsh heritage internationally who all want to feed back and support the growth of Wales back home.
I will conclude on an area where I feel upbeat and optimistic this St David’s day—energy. Wales has an important role to play in helping the UK to meet energy security objectives and to make strides towards achieving net zero. Wales already has an enormous heritage when it comes to energy. In my constituency, Milford Haven has a history of 50 years of oil and gas processing and import. The opportunity in front of us is the launch of a brand-new industry—floating offshore wind. We have made great strides with fixed-bottom offshore wind in this country, particularly on the eastern seaboard of the UK. But with floating offshore wind, we can have bigger turbines, go to deeper waters where it is windier, get a better load factor on the turbines and create more electricity.
With this new industry we cannot repeat the mistakes of the past. I am looking forward to the remarks by the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock), who has been working hard on that. If we do this right, we can create new domestic economic opportunities and genuine supply chains here in the UK and in Wales, and centre this new industry around Port Talbot and Milford Haven. It is great that our ports are collaborating on the Celtic freeport bid. It would be wonderful to hear from the Secretary of State when we might hear the outcome of that bidding process. That is the prize in front of us that is worth capturing. Big industrial economic opportunities do not come along that often in Wales, as you know, Mr Deputy Speaker. We have one now and we should seize it.

Stephen Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman is making an excellent speech and some very good points about floating offshore wind. On ensuring that we capture the benefits in Wales, does he agree that a very hard line should be taken with the Crown Estate to ensure that when leasing the seabed, there are clear conditions on the developer to ensure that the manufacturing, the supply chain, the jobs and the skills stay in Wales? We must not make the tremendous and awful mistakes of the past, when we allowed all the supply chains to go overseas.

Stephen Crabb: I agree. We need to achieve alignment between the Crown Estate’s leasing auctions, the Treasury’s contracts for difference process and the commitments that developers make. The hon. Gentleman is exactly right that we need to hold their feet to the fire—whether the developers’ or the Crown Estate’s. When companies make promises to create x number of jobs and apprenticeships in his constituency or mine, we want them to be realised. That is the opportunity in front of us.
I have probably exhausted my time. I hope that you feel as upbeat and optimistic as me, Mr Deputy Speaker. We spend a lot of time in this Chamber debating the problems and challenges facing Wales. Sometimes, as a nation we are prone to a little too much negativity. I hope on this St David’s day we can be positive and upbeat, and certainly follow the spirit in which the debate was opened by the hon. Member for Swansea East.

Nigel Evans: The right hon. Gentleman reminded me and all of us who grew up in Wales of the school eisteddfod, which I thoroughly enjoyed when I went to Dynevor School. We mostly got the afternoon off, so it was great.

Stephen Kinnock: I wish everyone a belated happy St David’s day if I did not wish it to them yesterday. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) not only on her wonderful, poetic opening speech, but on the Everyone Deserves a Christmas, Summer and Easter campaign. It seems to be an all-year-round campaign this year. I have had the pleasure of taking part in that initiative, which does a huge amount to tackle holiday hunger by providing hampers to families who are struggling at Christmas. I am proud to say that those hampers provided 447 children and their families across Neath Port Talbot with a lovely Christmas dinner with all the trimmings, plus lots of other treats. It was a great pleasure to be part of the hamper packing process, which also enabled us to hang out with some of our heroes from the Ospreys, the Aberavon Wizards and the Swans—even though I say that as a Bluebird.
That achievement was possible only thanks to the generosity of businesses and individuals across Aberavon and the whole area covered by the Everyone Deserves campaign, whose donations helped pay for the hampers. It also reflects the fact that many of my constituents, and I am sure those of all of our colleagues assembled here, are struggling with the rocketing cost of living. Record energy prices, soaring costs of household essentials, falling wages and the highest interest rates for 40 years are really biting. Real wages in Aberavon have plummeted since 2010, leaving my constituents £1,123 per year worse off on average. Incomes are simply not keeping pace with rising costs, and they no longer cover the essentials. Many talk of a cost of existing crisis rather than a cost of living crisis. Constituents are not putting the heating on or are cutting back on essential groceries. They are worried sick about whether they can pay their energy bills or afford their rent or mortgage payments. The numbers of people turning up to food banks is up, up, up.
In December, more than 33,000 people in Wales experienced financial hardship to the extent of accessing £2.36 million from the Welsh Government’s discretionary assistance fund. The Welsh Government have since pledged £18.8 million to the fund to protect people who are facing financial hardship. Despite having fewer economic levers at their disposal compared with the UK Government, the Welsh Government have stepped up to the plate by providing a £51 million household support fund targeted at those who need it most. They have doubled the winter fuel support payment to £200 to help those on low incomes with their energy bills, and have provided £1.1 million to support food banks, community food partnerships and community hubs.
The Welsh Labour Government are doing their level best to shield Wales from the worst of the crisis, but the reality is that energy bills will go up by £900 in April. Hard-working families are feeling the pinch, while oil and gas giants are celebrating record profits and laughing all the way to the bank. On behalf of my Aberavon constituents, I urge the UK Government to step up and help them and others across the country by closing the loopholes and bringing in a proper one-off windfall tax on energy giants. The money raised could be spent on a package of support for energy bills, passing savings on to households immediately, and stopping the energy price cap going up in April. An end must be put to the scandalous penalties imposed on prepayment meter customers, who should not be paying more than those who pay by direct debit. There also needs to be a three-month moratorium on the forced installation of prepayment meters.
Learning the lessons of the energy crisis is essential to prevent it from happening again. If our country is to better protect itself, we must become more resilient and less exposed to fluctuating global energy prices. That brings me on to a topic that the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) mentioned: floating offshore wind. FLOW will be hugely important in allowing our country to stand more firmly on our own two feet. It will also be essential in helping us reach net zero.
Port Talbot, along with the right hon. Gentleman’s constituency, has the potential to be at the heart of this 21st-century green industrial revolution. Our deep-sea harbour, our land for development, our excellent transport links, our world-class steelworks and our existing manufacturing supply chains and skills base make us well placed to deliver 24 GW of FLOW in the Celtic sea, a quarter of the UK’s total target.

Mark Tami: My hon. Friend hits the nail on the head. If we are to go down that road, we have to do it on a scale that will make a real change. The problem with our energy policy has been that we have tended to dabble in things without putting investment in. These things are not going to happen by themselves. We need to put investment in, and we need to put it in now.

Stephen Kinnock: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. I think we can agree that energy policy across the UK has tended to ebb and flow. It has not given investors the clarity or the long-term stability and certainty that they need. These are big investments that require confidence in the Government that things will not shift from one thing to another. Stability, strategic purpose and mission-driven government are what we need.
FLOW is a genuine game changer for the south Wales economy and the labour market, creating thousands of high-quality, high-skill local jobs. It is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform Aberavon and south Wales and turn us into a green power superpower, and what makes it even more exciting is that it can support green steel making. The steel industry has been crying out for years for UK Government support to mitigate crippling energy costs. UK steel producers pay an estimated 63% more than their German counterparts. They need to be able to compete internationally on a level playing field. Tata Steel estimates that producing 60 floating substructures and turbines a year for FLOW would  require 6 million tonnes of steel. The real win-win is that the green, clean energy produced through FLOW can help to produce the green steel that Tata plans to make in its future electric arc furnaces, which will replace the current blast furnace technology, at a lower cost per unit than is possible with the sky-high electricity prices that are currently holding our steelworkers back.
There are two key decisions that the UK Government, working in very close collaboration with the Welsh Government, need to make to kick-start this hugely exciting opportunity. The first is on the freeport bid. Delivering FLOW at the necessary scale and speed will require support. Backing the Celtic freeport bid can unlock £5.5 billion of new investment and 16,000 jobs. It will also provide the launchpad for accelerating the development of FLOW and bring household energy bills down. This is not a transactional opportunity; it is a transformational opportunity.
The second decision is on the floating offshore wind manufacturing investment scheme. FLOWMIS is another vital building block of this game changer for renewable energy. The Welsh Government have already stepped up to the mark and provided a £1 million grant to help the transformation of Port Talbot dock, with a dry dock and other facilities necessary to provide the manufacturing capability for FLOW. It is time the UK Government followed their lead and urgently launched the FLOWMIS programme. FLOWMIS co-funding would demonstrate the UK Government’s clear long-term commitment to developing the ports and the sector, giving confidence to investors and other funding providers to back the project and unlocking sizeable private sector investment potential. I really hope that the Secretary of State will say something about FLOWMIS at the Dispatch Box today.
For much of the 19th and 20th centuries, Welsh coal, slate, copper and steel were known around the world. In the 21st century, if the opportunity is seized, Wales could just as well be known for FLOW. The prize is clear: the creation of a new long-term industry whose high-value manufacturing has “Made in Wales” firmly embossed on the tin. Wales was the cradle of the first industrial revolution; now let us make it the cradle of the green industrial revolution.
It is not just FLOW that could be embossed with “Made in Wales”. Universities in Wales have been at the forefront of innovative ideas that could change the way we live, thanks to the £370 million of EU structural funds that have been invested in university-led projects in Wales. SPECIFIC—the sustainable product engineering centre for innovative functional industrial coatings—is a Swansea University project based in Aberavon. It has been doing wonderful work on creating buildings that store and release heat and electricity from solar energy, but no replacement funds offer the parity of support that is needed for that research and innovation work. More than 60 projects across Wales, including SPECIFIC, now face a very uncertain future. Approximately 1,000 jobs are at risk. Will the Secretary of State give a commitment today to speak with colleagues about bridging funding to enable these important projects to continue, to prevent Wales from losing this talent and to avoid the cliff edge that exists under the shared prosperity fund?
My Aberavon constituents and the people of Wales need something better. They need a UK Labour Government working in tandem with a Welsh Labour Government to deliver for Wales and deliver for our entire United Kingdom.

Rob Roberts: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock). I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who is well respected on both sides of the House, on securing this debate and opening it wonderfully. It is disappointing that her hair is not red, white and green just for today, but we do like it purple.
Yesterday morning, we went to New Palace Yard with Mr Speaker, some dignitaries and some fantastic children in full traditional attire to see the raising of the Welsh flag above Parliament. The children sang a beautiful song about Dewi Sant and presented Mr Speaker with some lovely daffodils, and those who knew the words sang the national anthem. Before taking pictures, my assistant said, “You don’t have a daffodil like everybody else.” My response was quite a cliché: “I don’t need one. I’ve got my Welsh pride with me in my heart every day, everywhere I go. I don’t need to wear a flower to show it to everybody else.” It was a bit tongue-in-cheek, but that is how I and so many people across the length and breadth of Wales really feel about our country.
The feeling of Welsh patriotism, strangely, is often a little bit more like a religion. Such is the depth of feeling of a Welsh person for their country, and everyone knows it. Even in these challenging sporting times for Wales, you will not hear a more stirring national anthem anywhere in the world than the one sung by 70,000 Welsh rugby fans blasting the roof off the Principality stadium. If you will indulge me, Mr Deputy Speaker, as St David’s day comes just once a year, it is the words of the rarely heard second verse that I find most enjoyable:
“Hen Gymru fynyddig, paradwys y bardd;
Pob dyffryn, pob clogwyn, i’m golwg sydd hardd,
Trwy deimlad gwladgarol, mor swynol yw si,
Ei nentydd, afonydd, i mi.”
For the benefit of those who do not know the verse, the translation is:
“Old land of the mountains, paradise of the poets,
Every valley, every cliff a beauty guards;
Through love of my country, enchanting voices will be
Her streams and rivers to me.”
That speaks volumes about the country and how it is regarded by the people.
A little while back, in preparation for this debate, I asked my constituents via social media to suggest what they would say themselves, or what they would like me to say, about life in Wales and how things are run. I will touch on a number of those themes now, only partly apologising for getting a bit more political during the remainder of my speech. As the hon. Member for Swansea East said in her opening speech, we are here to represent the views of our constituents.
Kathryn had a lot of points to bring up about life in Wales. She wanted to talk about travel, roads, the NHS, the disparities in local authority funding and the north-south divide. Dave asked about dentistry. Julie, a pharmacy worker, asked about the NHS and why there was no uniformity between systems and records. I shall say more about that later. Kyle asked about roads and public transport, Billy had more to say about the NHS, Paul asked about a new train station, and Len made a point about devolution generally, which I will save until the end of my speech. Quentin helpfully asked, “Why is  it that male voice choirs always sound so good?”. That is a fair question, but it will remain one of life’s unexplained mysteries, true as it is.
The predominant issue that keeps coming up in the responses from my constituents, and in the many emails and letters that I receive each week asking for help, is health and social care. I was here, in this very spot, exactly a week ago to take part in a debate on the future of the NHS, initiated by the hon. Member for Jarrow (Kate Osborne). Opposition Members lined up to take shots at the UK Government for their mismanagement of the NHS. One after another, they rose to their feet saying that Labour had a plan for the NHS. I was delighted to hear it. I intervened a couple of times to commend them for having a plan, and asked if they could please share it with their colleague the Welsh Labour Health Minister, who did not seem to have one at all.
In North Wales, Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board was put back into special measures earlier this week and all the members of the management board were relieved of their positions, with an interim chair and board put in place until replacements are found. That was the action of the Welsh Health Minister: removing the board which seemed to be the only body even trying to hold the failing executives to account, while allowing the executives and senior management team who had presided over a decade of failure to carry on. For it has been, sadly, a decade of failure—at least. The health board had been in special measures for about eight years until a few weeks before the most recent Senedd election, when it was announced with great fanfare that it was no longer in special measures. The political opportunism was astonishing, as Welsh Labour once again made winning votes a higher priority than the health of the people of north Wales. Nothing had changed, and nothing has changed now. Back into special measures the health board goes, but that does not mean anything: it has been like that for ages, and still nothing changes, including the Welsh Health Minister.
If the level of disastrous oversight of health services in north Wales were seen in England, His Majesty’s loyal Opposition would be calling for the resignation of the Secretary of State and his entire ministerial team, but it’s okay, it’s just north Wales—just north Wales, where only 62% of NHS buildings are operationally safe to use. In England, one in 20 people on waiting lists have been waiting more than a year—5%—while in Wales the figure is one in four, or 25%.
The health service in Wales performs worse in virtually every measurable area than the equivalent in England. Currently, only 51% of “red call” patients are responded to within eight minutes. That is the second longest ambulance wait time ever. Only 23% of amber calls, which include heart attacks and strokes, were responded to within 30 minutes. Where is the outrage? Where are the demands for a better service? Instead, we heard the Leader of the Opposition, the right hon. and learned Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Keir Starmer), say in a speech last year that the Welsh Government were providing a
“blueprint for what Labour can do across the UK”.
You couldn’t make it up, Mr Deputy Speaker.
However, as I said during last week’s debate, none of these statistics help. While we, as politicians in this place and in the media, spend all our time pointing fingers  and trying to apportion blame, we never get to the actual issues. The NHS is failing in all parts of the United Kingdom, under three different ruling parties. This is not a political problem but a structural one, and the more time we spend finding someone to blame and making foolish points that shut down any prospect of sensible debate—such as, “You just want to privatise everything”—the lower is the chance of any positive change that will make a real difference in outcomes for people.
As I mentioned earlier, Julie asked about uniformity of records and systems. It is ridiculous that if I had an accident or a medical problem while on holiday in Cornwall or Inverness, the medical professionals there would not be able to access my records because they are on NHS Wales systems. That enforced division is so harmful to the cohesion of the UK and our sense of community. We have spent years on an issue that thankfully, or hopefully, the Prime Minister seems to have finally solved —an issue that annexed and divided one part of the UK from the rest—but in so many small ways, we segregate and divide ourselves from each other on an ever-increasing basis. It is such a shame.
This morning, I received an email from a local reporter saying that they were running a story on the lack of availability of housing in Flintshire, and asking whether I would like to comment. The sad fact is that over the past three years, 665 new homes have been built in the average constituency across the UK, while in Delyn the figure is just 276, or 40% of the average. We have a huge lack of social housing, with people waiting on the list for years in the hope of a property becoming available, and virtually none are being built. However, I cannot lay the blame at the door of Flintshire County Council, as Flintshire receives the 20th highest funding settlement among the 22 local authorities in Wales every year.

Mark Tami: Will the hon. Gentleman applaud Flintshire County Council for actually building council houses, which we need more of?

Rob Roberts: Absolutely. I completely agree with my constituency neighbour. As I said, I cannot blame Flintshire County Council for this at all. It does what it can with the meagre resources it receives from the Welsh Government. [Interruption.] The shadow Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens), is shouting across the Chamber about the Treasury Bench, but this has nothing to do with the Treasury Bench. I am talking about the way in which the money is divided by the Welsh Government, and how it is allotted to the different authorities. As I said, Flintshire County Council comes 20th out of the 22 Welsh authorities every year.

Mark Tami: That clearly was not the case this year, was it, so will the hon. Gentleman put the record straight?

Rob Roberts: It was the case this year. On a per capita basis, Flintshire was 20th out of 22, as was recently stated by the council’s chief executive. There is no denying it whatsoever.

Stephen Crabb: My hon. Friend made an interesting point earlier about structural challenges in the NHS. He has now moved on to the subject of local authorities. Does he think that, for a nation of 3.3 million people, a total of 22 local authorities is too many?

Rob Roberts: I think that arguably it is. We should also consider the number of elected representatives we have, and the wish to increase that even further. London—which is a good example—has a population of 10 million, and significantly fewer elected representatives and decision-making bodies. I do agree with my right hon. Friend: 22 is far too many, whereas, in bizarre contrast, one health board covering the huge geographical area and diversity of north Wales seems, sadly, not to be enough.
Flintshire is so poorly funded by the Welsh Government that in order for services to be maintained, council tax in my constituency has risen by about 30% in the past couple of years. Given that my constituency also has about 25% more over-65s and elderly people than the national average, this is a huge problem for a constituency some parts of which are already among the top 10% of the most deprived areas in Wales. Other local authorities are in the top five for funding every year, despite having dozens of millions of pounds in unallocated reserves. It will come as a surprise to no one in the north that four out of the top five local authorities for funding each year are in the south. If Flintshire were simply given the average funding—if the funds were just levelled out and distributed in a fairer way—that would put an additional £20 million a year into Flintshire, and my constituents would not need to see reduced services at an ever-increasing cost.
Finally, let me say a little about transport. The Welsh Government announced recently that it was scrapping the majority of its road building projects, most of which were cancelled because of the attempt to get people out of cars and into other modes of transport. As parliamentarians we spend a great deal of time in London, and we recognise that public transport is better than cars in many instances; but that is London, which contains nearly 10 million people in a small area. In north Wales, about 750,000 people are spread across a vast geography of coastal and mountainous terrain. There  is no realistic prospect for people to abandon their  cars and use public transport, even if it were good, but unfortunately the public transport facilities throughout north Wales are terrible. Trains and buses run sporadically. When they do run, they are rarely on time. Public transport is simply not feasible, so to hear that the people of north Wales are being told that they should switch to alternative modes of travel, that they should submit to the increasingly pervasive active travel solution that asks pensioners to walk up the steep hills of Delyn’s towns in the name of reducing emissions, is ludicrous.
The roads policy, as well as the Welsh Government’s ridiculous move to reduce the speed limit from 30 mph to 20 mph from September, is nothing short of an attack on car users, not caring that car use is crucial in north Wales. Along with things like the tourism tax and falling educational standards, it is just another way in which the Welsh Government are systematically destroying the country that many of us love so dearly.
One of my respondents on social media spoke about devolution, which does not work for us in north Wales. It is a failed 25-year experiment that has delivered absolutely nothing for the people of north Wales, and now the Welsh Government want to expand it even further, at the cost of another £100 million.
It is my abiding wish, which I am sure will never come to fruition, that the UK Government look at what is happening in north Wales, put aside their seeming political position of “devolve and forget” and do something to  help us by bringing forward measures to test the will of the Welsh people once again on whether they want to continue with this failed experiment.
May 2024 will be the 25th anniversary of the establishment of the Senedd, and I live in hope that 2049 will be the 25th anniversary of its abolition.

Ben Lake: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), who made an interesting speech. He tempts me to agree with him, but I fear I will have to disappoint him on this occasion. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing the debate and on introducing it in such a wonderful and inspiring way. It really is a pleasure to participate this afternoon after such a fantastic opening.
St David’s Day week is a wonderful opportunity. It appears as if St David’s Day has become even more of a fixture in everyone’s calendar, and it is wonderful to see so many events being organised to remember the patron saint. It is good that Members from Wales have this opportunity to discuss the issues facing Wales today and perhaps in the future.
I was particularly struck by the comments of the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) on the exciting potential of floating offshore wind. We sometimes dwell on the negatives, especially given the state of the Six Nations performances this year, so let us dwell on some of the positives. The potential of floating offshore wind is exciting and, as the hon. Member for Aberavon said, it presents an opportunity for another green industrial revolution. The synergy between that source of energy and industry is unique and exciting, and I know it is something that other countries are looking at closely. I hope we can lead on that development.
Although I outline a point of consensus with the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire, I have to disagree with him on one important point, which is our patron saint’s origin and place of birth. He is correct to say that there is a legend suggesting that St David was born in Pembrokeshire, but I have it on good authority that there is another account suggesting that St David was actually born in Henfynyw, which is near Aberaeron in my constituency, and that he was a grandson of a king of Ceredigion, no less. Combined with his miraculous exploits at Llanddewi Brefi in the year 550, this surely marks him as potentially the most famous Cardi in history.
I am privileged to represent Ceredigion, and it would be remiss of me not to extol the wonderful attributes of the county’s communities and people. Members will of course be familiar with Ceredigion’s natural beauty—our coast and countryside are rightly the envy of the people of these islands—but it is the resilience of her people that casts Ceredigion as a truly remarkable place.
Other Members will agree that Friday is one of the highlights of our week, when we are able to go out and meet different organisations and people in our constituency who do remarkable things. It is a chance to meet the everyday heroes, such as those volunteering in local initiatives such as Home-Start and food banks. It gives us a sense of perspective, which is important in politics.  I place on record my thanks to all the people in Ceredigion who give so generously of their time to support others in the community.
Like so many other areas, the cost of living crisis has hit Ceredigion hard. I worry that such is its severity that it risks exacerbating longer-term demographic trends, endangering the county’s future vibrancy and prosperity. The wealth of any county, or country for that matter, is its people. As such, it is impossible to consider the results of the 2021 census without a degree of trepidation. Ceredigion recorded a 5.8% reduction in its total population, exceeding the decline of other areas, such as the 3.7% decrease in Gwynedd and the 1.2% drop in Ynys Môn. It is a demographic trend that is decades old, and Ceredigion’s experience is influenced by an even older tendency for populations to aggregate in more urban centres.
We need to consider how Government action can address some of the underlying drivers of rural depopulation and, at the very least, try to mitigate its consequences. A declining or reducing population impacts on the funding and provision of key public services. The hon. Member for Delyn mentioned the difficulties of funding local services, and a declining population does not help in that regard. It also makes it harder to recruit doctors for our surgeries, teachers for our schools and nurses for our hospitals. It saps the energy from civic initiatives, hinders economic growth and, at the worst, weathers the social fabric of local communities. We need only pass a closed school or a shuttered pub to understand the consequences of rural depopulation.
Yet, in the age of digital working and levelling up, we need not despair. The covid pandemic demonstrated that it is possible to live in areas such as Ceredigion and pursue careers that, in the past, might have required people to relocate to Cardiff, Bristol, London or elsewhere. Digital connectively offers possibilities of which previous generations of Cardis could only dream. Ceredigion’s economy would benefit significantly if its digital infra- structure could be brought into the 21st century.
Sadly, we still trail the UK averages for both superfast and gigabit broadband, so it is vital that the next iteration of the Government’s Project Gigabit programme brings forward much-needed investment in Ceredigion’s digital infrastructure without delay. I was grateful for the Minister’s response yesterday that he is willing to meet me to discuss this, because we still have areas of the county that have not only no access to broadband but no mobile coverage. Those areas should be prioritised in any new programme. In pursuing a levelling-up agenda, the Government could do much worse than to prioritise improvements to the digital infrastructure of rural areas.
If we are to counter such tectonic demographic trends, we also need to see structural funding from the shared prosperity fund and some creative thinking. I was interested to attend the recent session organised by the Welsh Affairs Committee with representatives of the Scottish Government, with whom I discussed some of their proposals for a rural visa pilot scheme. Although the levers to deliver the project are held by the UK Government, it is something we should consider. The Scottish Government have proposed a community-driven approach to migration that would respond to the distinct needs of rural communities to act as a counterbalance to an ageing demographic and rural depopulation. Such a policy should be explored further, as it could help to boost economic prosperity be ensuring that industries  secure the skills and labour they require to grow, and that public services can ensure they have the people needed to maintain key services.
We need a long-term strategy to address the consequences and drivers of rural depopulation. I am not proposing for a moment that I have the answers today, but individual policies such as a rural visa pilot or enhanced investment in broadband can nevertheless make an important contribution to mitigating some of the worst consequences of these demographic trends that Ceredigion and other rural areas are facing.
Before concluding, let me take the opportunity to raise an issue in the hope that the Secretary of State can use his good offices to look into it. We speak a lot in this place about energy efficiency and the need to decarbonise housing. In this cost of living crisis, with the current price of energy, there is a great deal of interest among the public in improving the energy efficiency of their homes. We should all be pursuing and supporting that. I am conscious that at present the flagship energy efficiency policy is ECO4—the fourth phase of the energy company obligation. Although I agree that retrofitting projects will have to play an important role in the broader energy efficiency mission, I am concerned about the implementation of ECO4 locally in my constituency.
I have been contacted by too many constituents with complaints and concerns about the way in which this scheme is being administered and run locally. Some have told me that they were supposed to receive support under the ECO4 scheme but it has ended up making things worse for them. We know that in rural areas the housing stock tends to be more inefficient and that fuel poverty in rural areas is a very pressing issue. So the fact that a policy designed to help ends up making things worse is a problem that demands urgent Government attention.
Let me give one example, that of an elderly household who undertook a project under ECO4. It was supposed to take three weeks for them to be connected and for their home to be fully insulated, with a new system, but they ended up being without any heat during the worst of the winter cold weather for several months. That is just one of many other instances that have been brought to my attention. We need to look again at how ECO4 is monitored and we need clearer lines of accountability. There is no doubt that a lot of good can be done if we can ensure that the energy-efficiency of our housing is much improved, but at the moment the policies that aim to realise that simply are not working.
I was about to start speaking to you in Welsh there, Mr Deputy Speaker. I want to conclude by again thanking the hon. Member for Swansea East for securing this debate and wishing everyone a happy, belated, St David’s Day.

Tonia Antoniazzi: I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), a good friend, for securing this debate and congratulate her on doing so. It has been a great week; the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) has spoken about the Wales in London events, which have been tremendous. Being at the Guildhall last night with so many people celebrating our Welshness was an honour and I really enjoyed it. It is funny that we are here.
My hon. Friend has spoken about the amazing work she has done with colleagues, and I have had the honour of being able to work with her as well. This gives me the opportunity to talk a little about a charity—this goes hand in hand with the work she has been doing—called The Sharing Table. It was set up a few years ago by Andrew Copson, an amazing man who has given his time to fundraise, with a lot of support from local people, and to make partnerships, particularly with Gower Gin; Andrew and Siân support the charity, as key partners. The Shared Table delivered more than 130 hampers of locally sourced meat and veg to people in Gower last Christmas—when this started it was just 13 hampers in 2019. I thank Hugh Phillips, the butcher, and Shepherds for making that possible, along with Carolyn Harris—sorry, I meant to say, “My hon. Friend”. I do that all the time, Mr Deputy Speaker, as you know, but I do apologise.
That charity has also put and is putting small kitchens into schools. We talk about food poverty, but it is important that young people and families learn how to cook and what different food tastes like when we face a health crisis and a cost of living crisis. It is important that children learn what different fruits and vegetables taste like and what to do with them. One of the latest kitchens that has opened is in the constituency of my hon. Friend, in Morriston. I hope that by working alongside Swansea Council the charity will put more kitchens into schools and work with young people and their parents so that they can cook a well-balanced family meal. That is key and that work is amazing.
The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire mentioned the beautiful city of St Davids in his constituency. I spend many of my holidays there and I do not send him any emails to say that I am there. I was honoured to be there at Christmas to spend time with my family, and being in the cathedral for mass is a wonderful experience. If anybody gets the opportunity to do that at Christmas, it really is something special.
I do not wish to leave out the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), my very good friend. As he knows, Aberaeron, has a special place in my heart. My auntie and uncle live there and my godparents used to live there. I am not going to go through everybody and say how wonderful their constituency is, because I must say that the Gower constituency is the most beautiful place to live. I am very proud of everybody who lives there—my constituents, who continue to support me and give generously.
My constituents also speak highly of the potential of Swansea bay. I know that the Secretary of State has done a lot of work on what was to be the Swansea bay tidal lagoon, which we now hope will realise itself in the blue lagoon project. The potential of Wales and the green industrial revolution has been mentioned. I do look to him for support for the Labour-led Swansea Council and its leader Rob Stewart in terms of harnessing the tidal energy that we have in Swansea bay.
I will have a bit of a rant now, Mr Deputy Speaker. A year ago today, I spoke up in this House about the Welsh Rugby Union. The right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire told us how he had heard an amazing advocate for women’s football, and football, in Wales last night. There are many, many people who are amazing advocates for rugby in Wales, and I am one of them. I believe passionately that being Welsh also means having a sense of identity. For me, many, many moons  ago, that meant being able to represent my country by playing rugby for Wales. I find it really hard to believe that we are too scared—the hon. Member for Ceredigion also made reference to rugby—because we are having a bit of a tough time in Wales. It makes me sad that we cannot big up the talent that we have. I want to big up our talent. We have an amazing captain of our men’s team in Ken Owens. He is an amazing man, one of the bravest. All the team are brave, because the situation in which they find themselves is really difficult for all of them and for their families, but they are not looking for pity. What they want is to make rugby better. I did not stand up in this House a year ago to say, “Isn’t it terrible what’s going on? Isn’t rugby awful in Wales?” It is our job in this place to call out poor practice and poor governance when they impact on how we feel about our sport, which is rugby in Wales.
Since I spoke up about the culture of misogyny and sexism a year ago, much has happened. I know that the former Secretary of State met the women’s team. He told me that, by the time he had left the Chamber, he had been invited by the Welsh Rugby Union to pay a visit to the Vale to meet the women’s team. I was really disappointed—not with him, I was glad he went—that, having spoken out, nothing much really happened. It took some very brave women and an amazing journalistic team in “BBC Wales Investigates” to pull together evidence of the poor behaviour in the Welsh Rugby Union. In my inbox, I have more than 30 emails to reply to. They are from women and families—and men—who have written to tell me about their experiences with the Welsh Rugby Union. That is a lot of people who want to tell me about their experiences, but there are also quite a few people who do not want to tell of their experiences to anybody, because they fear the backlash. Charlotte Wathan, who spoke out in the BBC Wales programme, is scared that she will never get a job now. She may have made herself unemployable. She needs to work, but she has spoken out. She has not done that because she wants to be on a 30-minute programme on BBC Wales, and have the focus of everything on her.
Another woman who spoke out was anonymous. An actor spoke her words. Why was that? Why did Amanda Blanc, the chief executive of Aviva, step down from the executive board? To be honest, why were those questions not asked? So far what we have seen is the departure of the chief executive of the WRU, which is probably right. But it is not just about one person. This is a cultural system that is impacting not just on women in sport—in this case rugby—but on the men. That is because the culture has also impacted on the wellbeing of our men’s team as well. It is a culture and it is everywhere.
I am glad that a taskforce has been set up by Sport Resolutions, funded by the WRU, to address these issues. I ask the Secretary of State to support me—I have told him how many people want to speak out—and to look for reassurances from Sport Resolutions. Will he state today that the anonymity of the people who need to speak to Sport Resolutions and to the taskforce that it is setting up will be kept at all costs? Otherwise, we will never get to the bottom of it, which makes the taskforce absolutely futile.
I never thought that after nearly six years in this place, I would be standing in the Chamber ranting about rugby, but it means so much to me and it makes our country proud. Somebody said, “All this talking down of rugby in Wales is not going to encourage  young people to play sport,” but that is nonsense. Playing sport—whatever sport it is—getting out there and being part of a team is the best thing that anyone can do. It is brilliant.
I am not saying that Wales is a terrible place or that rugby is a terrible sport; it is not. In my heart, I want it to be better—the best it can be. I want Warren Gatland to go to that World cup, with Ken Owens running out as the captain, and do the best he can to show how brilliant it is to be Welsh, so that we can feel proud of those boys and girls on the pitch. The women’s Six Nations is coming up, and the girls had quite a good season last year, so it is an exciting time to be in rugby.
Jonathan Davies, or Jiffy as we fondly know him, spoke out on “Scrum V” just after the programme had aired on BBC Wales. He said that this is a moment in time—a turning point—and that if the Welsh Rugby Union and rugby in Wales do not get their act together now, they never will. As parliamentarians, we have to put pressure on the Welsh Rugby Union to make the right decisions and to be transparent.

Rob Roberts: The hon. Lady is making a wonderful speech. She is right that the range of subjects that we discuss in the Chamber is often a surprise to the general public, and rugby in Wales is a particularly hot topic. Does she agree, in the spirit of what she has said, that the people who are trying to brush this issue under the carpet need to understand that, in such cases, sunlight is often the best disinfectant?

Tonia Antoniazzi: It is not often that I agree with the hon. Member, but sunlight, transparency and asking those questions are the best things.
I find it hard to believe that there have been such a number of grievances and non-disclosure agreements at the Welsh Rugby Union. Let us make no bones about it: all organisations will have grievances and non-disclosure agreements, but it is important that someone sitting on an executive board should be told how many there are and what their nature is, otherwise they might go to a Senedd Select Committee and not be able to tell it how many grievances and non-disclosure agreements there are. I find that difficult, because the data should be held by human resources and available to at least the executive committee. What does it tell us when there are no minutes of meetings and the minutes are not routinely published or available? It tells us that there is no sunlight, which we need to have.
When I am told that what has happened at the WRU is bigger than at Yorkshire cricket, and that is confirmed by others who know what is going on, I hope that we will all—I am not precious about it—stand up and ask those questions if we have the opportunity to meet the WRU. We need a root and branch review of rugby in Wales and what it means for everybody in all those clubs across Wales, from a small child starting off in tag rugby to those in our elite male and female games, as well as the mums and dads watching on the sidelines and washing the kit. I have met with my clubs since this has all come out and, interestingly, they have been quite engaging. We all need to ask our rugby clubs—although this is not just about rugby—how they engage with women and girls. They do not have to have a women’s team, because it is not all about playing. It is about being part of a club, being a rugby wife, rugby mum or  rugby sister—a fan of the sport. If we can get clubs to audit the skills of the women and girls involved in them, that will encourage them to get more women sitting on their committees. Having more women give up their time to do that is how we will get more parity and equality of representation at the top of the WRU.

Stephen Crabb: The hon. Lady is making a remarkable and important speech. She was at the Guildhall last night. Does she remember the remarks of Noel Mooney from the Football Association of Wales about its transition from being dominated by men to something approaching parity between men and women, and how that led to better quality of decisions? An audit of how clubs involve and work with women—the kind of exercise that the hon. Lady talks about—is valuable in its own right, but it will also lead to better decision making because more diverse viewpoints help the decision-making process.

Tonia Antoniazzi: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for his contribution, because he is right that Noel Mooney, the chief exec of the Football Association of Wales, did say last night that the dynamic has changed and that different ideas have been brought to the table, leading to better leadership and management.
I have a good friend who lives in Australia. She sits on the board of Rugby Victoria, which has imposed 50:50 representation. She has been ridiculed by other people that she is only on the board because of certain body parts, which is ridiculous. It is actually brilliant, however, because she is not a rugby player, but her daughters are, her son is, and her husband was. That is what I am trying to say. We had all-women shortlists to get better representation in the Labour party. That is the kind of thing we need to do in order to move forward. Clubs need to change their perception of what a woman’s place in rugby is. It is a cultural issue that all sports have problems with.
A word that has been said to me is “tokenism”. People say, “It’s just tokenism, Tonia. We don’t buy into it.” I do not buy into tokenism, because this is not about that; it is about being the best we can. However, we did see tokenism, disappointingly, in a knee-jerk reaction from the WRU when it decided to say, “We’re banning Tom Jones’s famous song ‘Delilah’.” I had not heard “Delilah” for donkey’s years, but I went to a rugby match, and everybody in the bar and on the train was singing it, and it was uncomfortable. I am not going to rant on about “Delilah”. It gets sung. We know the words. We all know that the words are wrong, and it would be great if we could change some of them, but hey-ho.
The word tokenism strikes at me. At the time of the WRU decision, Louis Rees-Zammit tweeted:
“All the things they need to do and they do that first…”
It is true; the WRU needs to do better for everybody involved in the sport, be they our little ones playing, the regions—that is a whole other debate—or the elite team. The Secretary of State is well placed to have those conversations, and I know that he has spoken with Nigel Walker, the interim chief executive. I know what a great man Nigel Walker is, and I hope that he and Ieuan Evans can turn this around, but it needs a massive shift.
I think I have finished talking about Welsh rugby union and rugby in Wales, but I hope that everybody in this House will join me in saying that we absolutely love rugby and want to big up our players, and that it represents who we are at every single level, whether we have played, watched or just gone along to help out. It is everybody’s; it is ours.
On another note—still on rugby, but with a different edge—the people who go to rugby clubs are all volunteers. I know that the Secretary of State met Rachel, one of my constituents, at Lancaster House. Rachel runs Tempo Time Credits, which is a brilliant way of getting people to do more volunteering and of encouraging more diverse groups of people to volunteer and support their local community. Rugby is a sure-fire win to get people involved. Our Tempo Time Credit volunteers can provide support to local rugby clubs, and they then get rewarded, perhaps with tickets to go to the Scarlets or the Blues—they could go to the Ospreys, but I suppose it depends. [Interruption.] Definitely. I do not want to cause a war in the Chamber. I just wanted to give a really big shout out to all those volunteers, because they make sport happen, not just in Wales but across the United Kingdom. For us, that is really important.
I will bring my comments to close. I thank everybody who has made this debate happen. I am grateful for the diversity of debate when we talk about Welsh Affairs. I am a very proud Welsh-Italian, and I am proud to have been able to stand up in the Chamber today and speak for those who feel that they do not have a voice.

Nigel Evans: Diolch yn fawr.

Geraint Davies: Diolch yn fawr iawn. I give great thanks to my neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), for her excellent speech, and to my other neighbour, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), for introducing this great St David’s day debate. I also thank the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake), partly because my father is from Aberystwyth in Ceredigion. That part of the family goes back, through my mam-gu, to Henry Richard. On my mother Betty’s side, the family has been in Swansea for five generations.
I will use this opportunity to mention Betty Boothroyd. Shortly after I was first elected to this place in 1997— I am the longest serving Member in the Chamber apart from you, Mr Deputy Speaker—Betty Boothroyd gave me her autobiography to give to my mother, and it was signed, “From one Betty to another. Keep your son in order!” My mother was very happy about that. As you will know, Mr Deputy Speaker, Betty Boothroyd was a great authority, a warm person and a fantastic tribute to this House.
We are all proud of Wales, of what Wales has done, and of the opportunities that we had in Wales, but I think we in here all accept that Wales has been particularly hard hit by years of austerity and now by the cost of living and inflationary crisis, with people who are, on average, poorer, older and sicker than the rest of the UK. The average earnings in Wales are something like 73% of the UK average, compared with Scotland, where they are 93% of the UK average. Because of that, we get a Barnett consequential of £1.20 for every £1 spent on services. Incidentally, Scotland gets £1.26, even though it is richer.
In recent years, and in the last 13 years in particular, austerity has hit public services, jobs and benefits disproportionately hard in Wales. I credit the work that has been done in various constituencies to help the poorest in need. We have seen the amazing emergence of food banks, and I regret the normalisation of food banks. Across the UK, one in four people are in food insecurity, and that is not where we should be. We need to think again about how we can move forward from this situation.
There were complaints from the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) about the health service. It is worth mentioning that the cost of treating someone who is malnourished through poverty is three times the cost of treating someone who is well nourished. In Wales, the health service is facing more people, and it is costing more to treat them, because of the level of austerity that has been inflicted. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) mentioned the need for a proper windfall tax to get the country back on track. It is important to remember that we need to get our fair share of investment in Wales.
I mentioned rail investment at Transport questions this morning. Unlike Scotland and Northern Ireland, we are not getting our so-called Barnett population share of the High Speed 2 money. The estimated cost has gone up to something like £100 billion, which works out at £3,500 for every household in the UK—it is an amazingly high cost. HS2 is a north-south spinal route that will reduce the time it takes to get from London to Manchester from two hours and 10 minutes to one hour and 10 minutes, but it still takes three hours to get to Swansea. It will displace investment from south Wales in particular to Manchester and elsewhere. The Barnett consequential should be a £5 billion investment, but we are not getting that. This is on the back of us getting 1.5% of the UK rail enhancement investment over something like 20 years for 5% of the population and 11% of the rail lines. It is time the Government looked to give us some money so that we can modernise, electrify and increase productivity and the wealth and health of the nation.
As I pointed out this morning, Transport for Wales has generated £2.5 billion of shovel-ready schemes to be delivered over the next 15 years—they are ready to go. I hope the Secretary of State will support me in calling on the Department for Transport to work with Transport for Wales and co-fund shovel-ready projects, to move them forward sooner rather than later. We want to increase productivity, we want wages to go up, and we want to deliver net zero, and that is vital.

Stephen Doughty: My hon. Friend is making important points about rail infrastructure. He will know that I have long campaigned for St Mellons Parkway to be built in the east of Cardiff, and we now have crucial funding from the levelling-up fund to create an essential link in the centre of Cardiff. I heard again and again from businesses that those rail links to Manchester, Birmingham, Leeds and Liverpool would help to grow their businesses and opportunities. For that, they need investment from the UK Government in those lines into Wales.

Geraint Davies: I agree with my hon. Friend, and I would go further: in south Wales specifically, one of the things we need to look at is the link between Swansea,  Cardiff and Bristol. That is a regional economy of 3 million people, and obviously it is part of the Union because it goes outside of Wales, but we only get about one service an hour, compared with Manchester to Leeds, which gets something like eight services an hour. There is a lot of talk about the northern powerhouse, but we need linkages in Wales, and between south Wales and the west, to make that hub work. Rather than everything having to go out of London, we should have localised economic prosperity in that way.
The point I am trying to make is that we need to alleviate poor health and low wealth through investment in infrastructure. We also need to invest in research and development, and in a green future. Something else that I raised this morning is that we are at a cliff edge in Wales, where we face the loss of 1,000 jobs in universities from 60 projects that are focused on generating green growth in the future. The structural funding from the EU is suddenly coming to an end, and the shared prosperity fund is delivered through local authorities, rather than being centrally divided among universities across the UK, as the structural funds have been in order to fire up new green projects.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon mentioned one of those projects, which is the cladding of homes to create their own power stations. There are also projects to dig up plastic waste from landfill and convert it into carbon nanotubes to be used in electric car batteries, medical instruments and mobile phones. There are projects to convert slag heaps from steelworks that represent billions of pounds of liabilities into billions of pounds of assets by a simple process using water, which converts them into iron ore, zinc and hydrogen. There are projects that take off-peak renewable energy that is currently not being used—the renewable energy that is not going into the grid at breakfast time and teatime—and convert it into hydrogen to be put into the gas grid, for instance, or into hydrogen transport.
All those cutting-edge projects are suddenly going to end unless we get bridge funding of £71 million for Welsh universities in particular, and £170 million for 166 projects across the UK. Again, that issue has been highlighted in the Financial Times. I hope the Chancellor will stop those projects from collapsing, because that R&D is vital for future green growth and exports, and that the Secretary of State will urge him to provide that bridge funding so that we can move forward.
There is a lot more we could be urging the Government to do, including a carbon border tax to ensure that if we do get the steel in Port Talbot and elsewhere to be produced through arc furnaces, so that it is less carbon intensive, carbon-intensive imports from China and elsewhere pay a tax, as will happen in the EU. Otherwise, we will end up in a situation where we are substituting clean south Walian steel with dirty Chinese steel. Following what is, in my view, the good news of the Windsor framework, which recognises and acknowledges the opportunities for Northern Ireland to link into the single market and trade with the United Kingdom, I also hope that trade from Wales to Northern Ireland and to Ireland will be facilitated through more rail infrastructure, so that we ensure our economy is vibrant and we do not simply see businesses moving from Wales to Northern Ireland.
I very much hope that we can get back on track. We are in an awful place. There has been a normalisation of food banks. They are meant to be one-off crisis points,  but people are now increasingly dependent on food pantries and other facilities for an ongoing supply of food. We need to move away from that position by investing in transport and in our prosperity and productivity, and reach a situation where there is less strain on the health service and where we can be strong again. That requires investment across the piece, so that as a Union and a nation, we can be strong again for the future. Happy St David’s day.

Owen Thompson: I wish all Members a happy belated St David’s day, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris) on securing the debate. As the only Member with a non-Welsh constituency to take part in the debate so far, I see myself as a friend and neighbour who is here to help contribute and to celebrate St David’s day. I hope that the story I tell shows the strong links that exist not only between my community in Midlothian and Wales, but more widely across Scotland. We have a shared history of friendship, and I promise that I will not mention the current Six Nations too much. Our time in the glory and the light will no doubt be short, as is always the way of it.
It has been an interesting debate so far. The sense of community and support for others that we heard from the hon. Member for Swansea East plays a large part in the shared fellowship between Scotland and Wales, and I will talk more about that. Midlothian’s links to Wales are long and many, and they are not just through the rugby clubs in Lasswade, Dalkeith and Penicuik, where long-standing exchanges go back and forward annually during what was the Five Nations and is now the Six Nations.
Far back beyond that, one of the great unknowns of industrial heritage came through Midlothian on his way to Wales, and that is the story I am keen to share today. Archibald Hood was the first president of the Cardiff Caledonian club. He was born in Kilmarnock in 1823 and worked from his early teens in the pit where his dad was an overman. Hood became a giant of engineering and innovation. How we do not know more about him is surprising to me. I first heard of him on a visit to the Rosewell miners bowling club, where they list the names of past presidents on the wall. They told me a bit about him, so when this debate came up today, I thought it was a great opportunity to say more.
From an early age, Hood had a desire to improve himself and spent much of his spare time, which was not a lot, extending his knowledge, in particular of mining and geological matters. He had a successful early career in south Ayrshire and became friends with William Walker, another pioneer of the south Ayrshire coal trade, eventually marrying his eldest daughter Cochrina. To this day, there is a street in Rosewell called Cochrina Place. Many of the streets and areas around Midlothian find their origins in the times of Hood and his workings.
In 1856, Hood moved east with a lease on the Whitehill colliery in Rosewell in my constituency. Mining was not new to the community, but Hood certainly brought new innovation, a new vision and progression to Whitehill and smaller collieries at Skeltiemuir and Gorton, both  well-known local land names that exist to this day. Like others of the time, Hood looked out for his employees and his workforce. He did not just take on the mine itself; he established good housing for the miners and their families. He made sure they all had a garden space and created a community for them—a model for the village that was later carried with him when he travelled further. He recognised the importance of such conditions to having a good workforce.
The House might ask why I am saying so much about Hood, but having been so successful in his time in Midlothian, he took that interest further and took it from Rosewell to the Rhondda valley. I recommend the book “From Rosewell to the Rhondda” by Archie Blyth to anyone. It is the story of Archibald Hood in much more detail than I am able to go into today.
In 1860, Archibald Hood was commissioned by two Liverpool-based Scots, Archibald Campbell and Gilbert Mitchell-Innes, to visit south Wales and,
“like Joshua spy out the promised land.”
He quickly assessed the sites they had sent him to, but realised they would not be as successful as they had thought. However, he took the opportunity to look at other possibilities, which took him to the Rhondda valley.
In April 1862, he negotiated a lease for the upper coal seam at Llwynypia—I apologise profoundly to everybody in the Chamber for my pronunciation, which I know is hopeless, but Members know what I mean—as well as the No. 3 Rhondda seam at Brithweunydd. Operations began under the auspices of the Glamorgan Coal Company, which was soon one of the top six companies in the south Wales coalfield, with coal marketed under the name Hoods Merthyr—apparently one of the very best brands that could be got in steel production. I am not suggesting that this level of quality and innovation came to south Wales only from Scotland; Members can draw their own conclusion from that. However, it was certainly a time when Scotland was exporting much expertise in such fields around the world.
With opportunities expanding, Hood moved to Cardiff with his family, where his home on Newport Road was named Sherwood—again, after the houses he had built for his employees in Bonnyrigg. The Sherwood estate is still there today, and houses many families. However, Hood did not just lift profits there; instead, he did the same as he had done in Rosewell. I believe that the model village from Rosewell is very much replicated in the Rhondda valley, where he was held in high regard by his employees. In many ways, it is a classic rags to riches story. Hood took his success from Scotland and never forgot his roots. Although clearly a successful businessman, he had a strong social conscience and a real desire to provide good-quality housing and community for his workforce. That was something he never forgot. It went beyond the physical. As one report highlighted after his death, speaking of the village he had built for his employees,
“In short it is the only place in the Rhondda in which sports have been actively encouraged by the colliery proprietor”,
again going back to our shared links through sport.
Hood was in many ways a visionary of his time, although there do seem to be questions over some of his tactics in negotiating contracts with his workforce, but we will focus on the positives for today. After establishing  local churches in Rosewell, he later took this to Wales, where he played a big part in the establishment of the Presbyterian Church in Cardiff. It is testament to the regard in which he was held by his employees that on his death in 1902, at a very good age for the time, his workforce joined together to erect a statue to him, raising £600, which by my reckoning is just short of £100,000 in today’s money—no small feat. To this day, the bronze statue to Archibald Hood overlooks the Rhondda valley, pointing towards his colliery. It was the first public commissioned statue in the area.
This is a tale of the shared heritage that we enjoy. There are clearly differences between us all in our outlooks and the way in which we want to take things forward, but today I am looking at our shared past and how we can use that to celebrate St David’s day across the wider Welsh family—as an Owen, I can certainly appeal to that. There are so many links that we share, both coming from Midlothian in Scotland to Wales, and vice versa. Long may that tradition continue.

Roger Gale: I call the shadow Minister.

Jo Stevens: I start by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), the deputy leader of Welsh Labour, for securing this debate, the Backbench Business Committee for granting it and all colleagues present for their contributions to a wide-ranging debate on Welsh affairs.
A year ago, when we last held this debate, we did so in the shadow of Putin’s barbaric invasion of Ukraine, which was just beginning. Like then, I know that today the thoughts of people across Wales, and of Members across this House, remain with the people of Ukraine. As a nation of sanctuary, we in Wales have a proud history of welcoming those fleeing conflict and persecution. In the past year, more than 3,000 people fleeing Putin’s barbaric and illegal invasion have found sanctuary through the Welsh Government’s super-sponsor scheme. I met some of them together with my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff South and Penarth (Stephen Doughty), who is no longer in his place, and the Leader of the Opposition in Cardiff last week, and it was a real privilege to spend time with them. I am sure that Members across the House will join me in wishing all our Ukrainian friends a happy first St David’s Day in Wales, and in thanking everyone who has supported them.
We have heard some wide-ranging and heartfelt contributions from Members. My hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East has been such a superb champion on behalf of the 13 million women across the United Kingdom who are going through the menopause. In her own unique way, in a wide-ranging speech about all the things that she has done and which we are so proud of, she has really shown that her work on menopause means that menopause matters—it really does.
The Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, the right hon. Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb), talked about this year’s Wales Week in London being bigger, better and louder than ever. It certainly was last night in the Guildhall, which was a really enjoyable occasion. I was thinking, when he was talking about the Welsh diaspora globally, that years ago I went to Ellis Island in New York, and there was this fantastic exhibit  of a map of America. We could press a button showing our nationality, and it would tell us how many Welsh people lived in every state in the United States. That has always stayed with me, and I have taken my children back there to see it, because I was so impressed by it. It just shows how far and wide the Welsh can spread.
The right hon. Member also talked about football and that superb speech by Lowri Roberts last night, as did my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea East, and about the wonderful Gareth Bale, who, quietly and without fuss, has shown his real generosity to people in Wales.
My hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) made a great speech about the floating offshore wind that we all want to see. He really is, I think, Mr Steel —a proud champion for his constituents and the steel- workers in Port Talbot.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) talked about which can claim St David as its own: Pembrokeshire or Ceredigion. I think probably Pembrokeshire is in the lead at the moment, but we will see. It was a very thoughtful contribution about digital infrastructure, and about how extending the digital infrastructure in rural areas is going to help stem that demographic of young people leaving our rural communities.
We then had a speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi), who reminded us that a year ago she stood up in this Chamber to warn about the trouble brewing in the Welsh Rugby Union. All of us want to see not just strong teams on the pitch that we are really proud of—and we are really proud of them—but a strong team off the pitch and in the boardroom of the WRU, so that it changes its culture, has a fresh start and can make us proud. We all want to see that, and I am sure I speak for everybody across the House on that.
I initially misheard my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies), and I thought he was saying that Betty Boothroyd was his mother, but clearly not. He talked about the impact of inequality, including the financial inequality that leads to health inequality.
We have covered lots of issues—some political, some not—but I think the issue that we all recognise has dominated Wales for the last 12 months is the cost of living crisis. Households and businesses in every single one of our constituencies have had to deal with soaring inflation, rising food bills and skyrocketing energy costs. Decisions taken by successive Conservative Governments have added to those pressures. Under this Government, Welsh households are facing the highest tax burden in 70 years, the biggest forecasted drop in living standards since records began and the longest pay squeeze for more than 150 years.
Yet, despite the challenging backdrop, Welsh Labour is showing the real difference that the Labour party in government can make. Our Welsh Labour Government are delivering a fairer Wales, where care workers are paid the real living wage, where all our primary school pupils can get a free school meal, and where students get the most generous support in the UK. The Welsh Government have promised to guarantee education, training or employment for everyone under 25. Our young person’s guarantee has supported more than 11,000 young people into work. New protections for tenants have come into place, ending unfair no-fault  evictions—while, in contrast, in England there is a failed manifesto promise to deliver those protections for tenants.
In Wales, under a Labour Government, we are achieving some of the highest recycling rates in the world, which my constituents are very proud of, tackling plastic pollution and planting a national forest. Not only are our Welsh Labour Government taking action on the challenges of today; we are also looking ahead to the future. We have not banned offshore wind, and we have had no talk of fracking with a Labour Government who protect our Welsh environment for the sake of future generations. And our Welsh geography means that, as we have heard today, we are uniquely placed to be at the forefront of the developing floating offshore wind network, which will be vital to hitting the UK’s net-zero target. FLOW—as I now know it is called, thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Aberavon—is a massive opportunity for Welsh steel and to grow our supply chain in Wales, and we must do everything in our power to ensure that the supply chain creates jobs in Wales, boosting the Welsh economy.
We must not have a repeat of what has happened with HS2, where there has been no commitment from the Government to use Welsh or UK steel in the building of that huge infrastructure project. That has failed our steel industry and our steelworkers, to the extent that even the Business Secretary said recently that having a steel industry in the UK is not a given—what a lack of ambition this Government have for the industry and for Welsh and British business. This tells me that the right hon. Member for Uxbridge and South Ruislip (Boris Johnson) was not joking when he let slip what he really thought of UK business.
Floating offshore wind in the Celtic sea could make an enormous contribution to meeting the UK’s future energy needs and our energy security. Under this Government, currently the largest onshore wind farm in Wales is owned by Sweden, so our energy bills are paying for schools and hospitals in Stockholm. We need a UK Labour Government who will lead the way, so that we can harness this potential and deliver the economic benefits to Wales.
Returning to the cost of living crisis in Wales, all of us know that people in every part of Wales are facing financial pressures. For many people, it is an impossible task each week to pay basic bills like heating, food, shopping, and the rent or mortgage. That reckless Tory mini-Budget last September has left a lasting and painful legacy across Wales, and no amount of spin or pretence as to who is responsible for the chaos and cost will wash with the Welsh public. They know who has stepped in and done everything they can to help put money back into peoples’ pockets: their Welsh Labour Government and their Welsh Labour councils, which is why there is now not a single Conservative-led council left in Wales. They also know what a Government with integrity look like, because they re-elected the Welsh Labour Government led by Mark Drakeford, with Labour matching its best ever Senedd election result.
At the next general election, people across Wales can elect a UK Labour Government: a Government who will be on the side of working families, making work pay; who will provide certainty and stability, not chaos  and short-term fixes; who will seize those new opportunities, not watch from the sidelines while we fall behind in the global race; who will give people skills and opportunities, not leave their potential untapped; and who have strong, purposeful, ambitious leadership that puts country first, not party, driving power and opportunity into every nation and region.
Wales has a great future. A stronger, fairer, greener, more secure, more prosperous and more positive future is there for all of us.

David Davies: I wish you, Mr Deputy Speaker, and everyone in the Chamber dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus.
I begin by offering my hearty congratulations to the hon. Member for Swansea East (Carolyn Harris), who always talks a lot of sense and always has something worth listening to. I would like to think that we all share the values she espouses when she talks about the charities she supports in her constituency—I think they rang bells with all of us—but we know that she does not just talk the talk, but walks the walk in what she does. She has been campaigning on menopause and mentioned the difference in treatment between women in England and Wales. I have been informed that, as of April, women in England will be able to get a one-year prescription payment certificate, partly as a result of her campaign, so that is worth mentioning. She has been a campaigner on many issues and I thank her for securing the debate.
In the brief time I have, I will try to go around the Chamber and mention something from all the speeches and pick up on some of the questions. If I leave anything out, forgive me—I am sure it will be taken up at a later date. My right hon. Friend the Member for Preseli Pembrokeshire (Stephen Crabb) spoke next. He started by talking about the importance of football, including women’s football. As a parent who has watched many football matches, I believe a lot can be learned from women’s football and the way it is played in a supportive and nurturing environment. I welcomed listening to the inspirational speech by the head of women’s football yesterday in London.
My right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Aberavon (Stephen Kinnock) spoke about the importance of steel and FLOWMIS. On floating offshore wind, the Government are very supportive and we look forward to bringing 4 GW by 2035 in the Celtic sea. I have been engaging with the companies involved and the Crown Estate about how quickly we can bring that forward. There will be an announcement shortly on FLOWMIS—I am told that it will be very shortly indeed, but I am unable to give a date. The Government also very recently brought in an energy-intensive users scheme to ensure that steel companies, which the hon. Member for Aberavon feels very passionately about, are not losing out, in competition terms, to companies in the rest of Europe, which are paying less per megawatt hour for the electricity they use.

Stephen Crabb: What the Secretary of State says about the FLOWMIS announcement is really significant. It is very good to hear confirmation from the Treasury Front Bench that there will be an announcement. I do not expect him to go into detail, but that pot of money is meant to be shared between ports in Scotland and Wales. Wales should get its fair share and that has to mean at least half.

David Davies: My right hon. Friend is tempting me here. Clearly, Wales should get its fair share of that—as Secretary of State for Wales, I am hardly going to disagree. On what that fair share is and how it is calculated, I do not have access to the exact detail yet, but he, as Chair of the Welsh Affairs Committee, and I will certainly be taking a very strong interest.
I will come back to universities, which I think were raised by the hon. Member for Aberavon. Before I do, the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts) made a very good point about the state of the national health service in Wales. If we are honest about it, we have all heard and dealt with constituents who have grave concerns. The fact that Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board is back in special measures is proof positive that there is a problem and where there is a problem it needs to be acknowledged. Somebody in the Welsh Government needs to get on and deal with it. It was interesting that the hon. Member for Cardiff Central (Jo Stevens) in her summing up mentioned a lot of things, which I will come on to in a moment, but did not mention the national health service. Given that the Labour party says it has a plan for the national health service, it was surprising that she did not want to draw attention to her own party’s running of it in Wales, where it has been in charge for around 20 years.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion (Ben Lake) made a very good point about depopulation, which I think would be shared in many rural areas. If we can get broadband rolled out in the way we want to, I believe it would help. We have seen a change in the way society works over the past three or four years, partly as a result of covid. Many more people will be able to work from home and that may be positive. He said that he did not have all the answers— I certainly do not, either. I hope he would recognise that growth deals that are being put together by local authorities in all areas across Wales hold part of the problems. He will know that in his area, tourism and agriculture are strong. Growth deals are being set up specifically to deal with that and to offer people careers rather than jobs, precisely because that is a widely recognised problem across the political spectrum. We want young people to be able to stay in their own areas, rather than having to go to the big cities to work.
The hon. Member for Gower (Tonia Antoniazzi) made a powerful and insightful speech. She has spoken out on misogyny in sport and rugby before, including around 12 months ago and, unfortunately, not enough action was taken. Everyone will have listened carefully to what she said. She has spoken out on women’s issues in other areas than just sport, and I suspect she has had quite a lot of abuse on social media in the past for some of her comments when standing up for women’s rights. I fear that many women who have spoken out will probably get abuse on social media from cowardly people who probably would not look them in the eyes and say to them what they say online.
The hon. Lady knows that I have no locus in the WRU. After the allegations were made, I reached out to the WRU and asked for a meeting to discuss them. I met Nigel Walker briefly, who I find an impressive individual, but it was informal and I do not feel that we got down to address those issues. My office has been in touch with the WRU and I would be pleased to meet a little more formally and go through some of them.  The hon. Lady is absolutely right that those people with complaints need them to be treated with anonymity and respect. I fear it may not just be rugby; many organisations probably have to deal with some of the issues that recently have been confronted.
The hon. Lady for Swansea West—[Interruption.] Do forgive me, I have not celebrated dydd gŵyl Dewi yet today. The hon. Member for Swansea West (Geraint Davies) was somewhat critical of Labour’s plan for HS2, which was put together around 2008-09 and was continued by the subsequent Conservative and coalition Governments. As I understand it, the reason that the Labour Government gave—

Geraint Davies: With all due respect, I was not critical of it as such. I said that we should get our fair share of the investment—the £5 billion. Will he support that? He is the Welsh Secretary—he should.

David Davies: I am not sure how the hon. Gentleman calculates that figure—we have discussed that before.

Geraint Davies: Five per cent. of £100 billion.

David Davies: I think that the current cost would be rather less than £100 billion for HS2. Also, it is being built over many years. If we took the £50 billion figure over 10 years, that is £5 billion a year. Five per cent. of that would be considerably less than the huge increase in funding already given to the Welsh Government by the UK Government—£2.5 billion of record-breaking funding.

Geraint Davies: rose—

David Davies: I will give way, but let me make one last point. It is an England-Wales project because Wales will benefit, particularly north Wales, from the faster connections via Crewe. That was always made clear, and I am not aware that the Labour Government said anything different.

Geraint Davies: Would the Secretary of State support the shovel-ready schemes already developed by Transport for Wales, which are worth £2.5 billion to be invested over 15 years—half the amount we should get? I raised that with the Minister of State, Department for Transport, the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman), this morning, who said that his officials would work with Transport for Wales. Would he support joint funding so that we can get that going rather than resisting all investment in Wales?

David Davies: I am aware of probably three schemes ongoing at the moment within the rail network enhancements pipeline project, which I hope will be brought to fruition shortly, but I support as much spending as possible on the railways in Wales.
I might be being discourteous to the shadow Secretary of State, because I promised to speak for about seven minutes. Let me quickly say, because it was of interest to the hon. Member for Swansea West, that on university research funding, I committed to go around all the eight universities in Wales as quickly as I could. I am currently doing that, and I think I am on about No. 5. I have been looking at what they have to offer in terms of research, to see the best of it and to bring everyone to an event in  London to meet UK Research and Innovation so that we can get more UKRI funding into Wales. That is something that I am happy to update him about shortly.
The hon. Member for Midlothian (Owen Thompson) made a wonderful speech. He almost seemed to be apologetic about representing a non-Welsh constituency, but most of us in this Chamber are proud Unionists and we welcome hon. Members from all parts of the Union. He spoke about the fantastic character Archibald Hood, who is described in the book “From Rosewell to the Rhondda”. Clearly Mr Hood, 150 years ago, was making the most of the opportunities we have to move around the Union. Let me say tapadh leat, which I think is Scottish Gaelic for thank you, to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Cardiff Central rightly acknowledged the huge bravery of the Ukrainian people, 6,000 of whom are in Wales. In Chepstow last week, I met Ukrainian constituents, as the hon. Lady has done—they are now our constituents. We say, “Croeso mawr i bob un ohonyn nhw.” They are all incredibly welcome in Wales. We hope that they have an opportunity to go back to their country at some point, but we are delighted that they are here at the moment.
The hon. Member made a point about the cost of living crisis. I will take a leaf out of my own book and say that we absolutely acknowledge it: there is a cost of living crisis. That is why we have been prioritising our help for pensioners by making sure that pensions, benefits and the minimum wage go up in line with inflation. We have been making payments of £900 to those who are on benefits, £300 to pensioners and £150 to those who are on disability benefits. We are spending £18 billion this winter to ensure that around half of people’s energy bills are being paid. What we certainly will not do is ban meal deals, because that would hit people in the pocket.

Rob Roberts: The shadow Secretary of State said that Welsh Labour is putting more money in the pockets of Welsh people. Labour has a penchant for fantasy economics. Does the Secretary of State agree that before devolution the average wage in Wales was exactly the same as the average wage in Scotland, but now—25 years later—it is 20% lower?

David Davies: It is tempting, but I promised the hon. Member for Cardiff Central that I would speak for only seven or eight minutes and I have overrun, so I will simply thank everyone for a very constructive debate today and say, “Diolch yn fawr iawn i bawb. Dydd gŵyl Dewi hapus.”

Roger Gale: With the leave of the House, I call Carolyn Harris to wind up the debate.

Carolyn Harris: How wonderful it has been to have so many communities across Wales represented today—from Caswell to Cardiff, from Pembroke to Penlan, from Aberavon to Aberystwyth, from Delyn to Dunvant.

David Davies: What about Monmouth?

Carolyn Harris: Not all hon. Members have been able to speak in this debate, but as my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Gerald Jones) is here on the Front Bench, I will say, “And from Merthyr to Monmouth.” Whether we have talked about rugby or renewables, about cost of living or community, we have all spoken with passion not just for Wales, but for being Welsh, which is something we are all most definitely very proud of. When we wake up of a morning before coming to this wonderful building, we want to be able to look in the mirror, look ourselves in the eye and say, “What I do, what I say and how I behave are what my constituents would want. This is how they would want me to represent them.”
I have just two more things to say. First, I must say thank you to Scotland for Keir Hardie. Secondly, I sincerely apologise to the hon. Member for Delyn (Rob Roberts), who I truly feel has been let down: I had not thought of coming with red and green hair, but I promise to do better next St David’s day.
A happy belated St David’s day. Thank you, one and all.

Roger Gale: May I thank the House for the exemplary courtesy with which this debate has been conducted?
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House has considered Welsh affairs.

North and East Syria: Autonomous Administration

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Andrew Stephenson.)

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: Let me begin by drawing the House’s attention to my entry in the Register of Members’ Financial Interests, and declaring that I am the chair of the all-party parliamentary group for Kurdistan in Turkey and Syria.
Last month I had the privilege of travelling to Kurdistan in Iraq and the region known as the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria for the third time. When I visited in 2017, I was told that that I was the first British Member of Parliament to travel to Syria since the outbreak of the civil war. I followed that up with another trip in 2019, with the hon. Members for Gravesham (Adam Holloway) and for Reigate (Crispin Blunt), and last month I was accompanied by the hon. Member for Hendon (Dr Offord), whom I thank for being present today.
I first undertook these visits to raise awareness of the plight of the Kurdish people in the region and their struggle against ISIS, but what I have seen and experienced there has been greater than the struggle of the Kurds in the north-eastern corner of Syria. It is, in my view, a struggle for democracy, for a multi-religious and multi-ethnic, feminist-based organisation of society: a struggle not only against ISIS, but at times, very realistically, a struggle against Damascus, and against pressures from both Baghdad and Ankara that are frankly unhelpful.
Our Kurdish allies in the region have answered the call to defeat ISIS and are still keeping us safe from them. During my visit to the Syrian region, we were told that more than 20,000 foreign fighters and their families from more than 50 countries were currently in detention, including ISIS fighters from Britain, a number of whom I have met. The authorities have requested the establishment of an international criminal tribunal to bring due process and justice to the region, and to a conflict that seems to be increasingly forgotten. When I asked the north-eastern Syrian authorities whether they thought they had enough evidence to convict Shamima Begum there, in their area, they assured me that they did, and could use it if a tribunal were set up. However, it cannot be left to the authorities of a war-torn country which has had the world’s worst extremists exported to it to be the sole administrators of justice. They themselves say they cannot do it alone, and that they need our help. May I therefore ask the Minister what support the Government can provide to help the autonomous region to administer justice for the tens of thousands of foreign fighters, and—more important, of course—the victims of those fighters?
This cannot wait. Last year ISIS launched an attack on the prison where the fighters are being held in an attempt to break them out. I have visited the prisons and camps, and the prisoners are not pleasant people at all. It was explained to me that Mosul, the second largest city in Iraq, fell within weeks with just 1,000 ISIS fighters, and we now have tens of thousands held in camps. All it would need is an earthquake in that region, and we can imagine the disaster that could unfold. I was warned that “what comes after ISIS could  be even worse”. We must mobilise the international community to establish a criminal tribunal and adopt a co-ordinated approach in delivering justice—delivering justice where the crimes were committed and not necessarily here, as we did in Rwanda and in Sierra Leone.
I believe that a British fighter who is convicted in Syria should serve his or her sentence in a British prison or another prison of appointment, and, furthermore, that if a fighter from a former Soviet republic in central Asia such as Turkmenistan—I am told there are quite a number of them—is found guilty of a crime, we must find a way to share the burden in the western community. That is what we have done in the case of previous international tribunals, and although the scale of this is larger, I would say that the need is greater, because the threat is to us as well as to people in the region. This is necessary not only for the sake of justice, but for our own safety. Although currently stable, the situation could deteriorate, and the consequences of that will be catastrophic.
Let me now say something about the destabilising effect in the region. I was told in every meeting, by every official, that the largest stabilising force in the region is Turkey. The authorities allege that the constant barrage of attacks being made against civilian and political leaders in the autonomous region is having profound effects on the running of the authority. We were told of an attack that had happened when we were there. In the midst of everyone’s efforts to focus on earthquake recovery, attacks were still ongoing. Turkey is now threatening to expand its land invasion into northern Syria, specifically targeting cities such as Kobane, which I visited on my first trip. It was rebuilt after ISIS’s absolute devastation. The Kurds are claiming that the Turkish Government used Islamists and dangerous terrorists to secure much of its occupied lands in Syria. This has ended up harbouring the very terrorists whom we have a mandate to defeat under UN resolutions.
Can we have a statement from the Foreign Office condemning the use of drones in north-east Syria against the autonomous region and our allies, who are fighting with our service personnel against the ongoing ISIS threat? Further, on the threat of a wider invasion, what consequences would there be for a NATO ally that proceeded with an invasion against our Kurdish allies, with whom our service personnel are embedded?
It saddens me to highlight Turkey, which is the great country of Atatürk and Labour’s sister parties, the CHP and the HDP. The country has a secular tradition, but Turkish aggression and intimidation are now expanding beyond its borders. We all know of the Turkish Government’s treatment of Sweden and Finland on their entry to NATO, and they are now using similar tactics to target British MPs and British Kurds who speak out.
Last year, a colleague and I were targeted by a smear from the Turkish embassy, which wrote to Mr Speaker about our visiting hunger strikers. It claimed in The Sun that we were supporting terrorism by visiting a protester who was calling out the maltreatment of opposition leaders in Turkey. I remind the House that Turkey has locked up the most politicians, journalists and judges of any country—any country—in the world.
In September 2022, a life-long Labour activist who had been granted security clearance for many conferences was denied access to the Labour conference by the  security agencies, I am told at the behest of Turkey, because of her work in north-east Syria, a region that we do not define as run by terrorists. We make a distinction; Turkey does not.
A few weeks ago, pressure was put on Members of this House and Members of the other place to withdraw from a Trades Union Congress-supported event on freedom for Öcalan, the incarcerated leader of many Kurds. His incarceration and treatment has been condemned by the Council of Europe.
This week it was confirmed to me by senior sources that the Turkish embassy is keeping a dossier on me and other Members of Parliament who believe in an open, multi-ethnic, democratic Turkey and who are against the current regime. The embassy is passing on these bits of information to party management and the press agencies when it thinks it can undermine or silence us.
If China, or even an ally such as Saudi Arabia, tried to undermine political parties and Members of this House, it would be outrageous and the Government would act. Turkey is rightly a proud NATO ally that I want to see lifted from the current veil of Islamic nationalism that is taking root, so will the Minister meet me to discuss these concerns and to see what we can do to ensure that no foreign Government, even an ally, can bully MPs, parties or the Kurdish diaspora?
Finally, I will turn to refugees, the camps for internally displaced people and nation building. We visited and heard from civil society. There are three camps of close to 50,000 people, and a huge proportion of them are children and young people. These camps do not have adequate toilets, and they have only limited clean water and medical facilities. They have problems with lice and scabies outbreaks. The authorities are doing the best they can, but they are largely being ignored by the international community. They have no assistance from the United Nations or other Governments. Damascus is preventing UN agencies from fully supporting these camps, and it will not allow them to support our allies. Aid is urgently needed. Will the Minister therefore explore the use of our own aid, and our connections with aid agencies and the UN, to seek direct support for these camps? The aid currently given to Damascus does not get to the region, where it is desperately needed.
Those in the majority Kurdish areas could not be schooled in their mother tongue or freely practise their traditions while under the control of Assad’s regime. After the Arab spring, their fledgling democracy emerged, before it came under the existential threat of ISIS, which stood against everything they and we believed in. ISIS subjugated women and brutally oppressed its own people in an authoritarian death cult. Yet, with international support, these people have re-emerged and they are trying to rebuild a multi-ethnic, multi-religious society. We owe them the support to help build that future, even if imperfect. They do not seek separation from Syria; they want autonomy and democracy within it. They need not only our help in containing the continuing threat of ISIS, but protection from neighbouring Governments and their own Government to prevent their being destroyed. Support for the autonomous region in north and east Syria is not only in our geostrategic interest, but is the morally right thing to do.

Matthew Offord: Thank you very much, Mr Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to speak in this debate. I also declare an interest, as I have recently been to the region, with the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle), on a not only fascinating, but hugely informative visit.
Yesterday, the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell) made an oral statement on the earthquake in Turkey and Syria. I spoke in that statement and highlighted the killing of a Syrian Democratic Forces solider in Kobane on 12 February. Previously, I had tabled several written parliamentary questions on this issue, seeking an assessment from the Government on whom they believed were responsible for that attack and others. Unfortunately, I received what I can only consider an indifferent response from the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley), who gave the same reply to two different questions:
“While we do not have authoritative estimates of casualties, we engage directly with partners to encourage restraint from activity that could lead to further destabilisation or civilian loss of life. Security and stability in the region are necessary to prevent worsening of the already serious humanitarian situation in northern Syria—including in the wake of the 6 February earthquake—and enable the Global Coalition and its partners to continue the fight against Daesh.”
At yesterday’s statement, the Minister of State, who is responsible for development and Africa said, in response to my comments:
“My hon. Friend has seen at first hand the impact of the Syrian regime on those poor people who have suffered not only from Assad and the Russian war machine, but now from this dreadful earthquake.”—[Official Report, 1 March 2023; Vol. 728, c. 807.]
At no point did I accuse any faction of orchestrating this attack, even though the discussions that the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and I held with many stakeholders in the north-east autonomous region, including the leader of the SDF, concluded that the drone attacks are being carried out by the Turkish military authorities. So a straightforward question to ask the Minister today is: who does she believe is perpetrating these attacks, the Syrian Government or the Turkish Government?
Just over five years ago, Iraq declared that its territory was released from besiegement by Daesh, but it was only three years ago that Daesh was defeated in Syria after losing the battle of Baghuz Fawqani. Unfortunately, the military eradication of Daesh has not meant its complete elimination. At least 12,000 combatants were captured during the conflict and many others remain at large as sleeper cells. These people are brutal fighters who answered an international call to create a Daesh caliphate, travelling from more than 50 countries, including the UK, Kurdistan, Uzbekistan, Turkestan and other Russian speaking countries, as well as Tunisia, Morocco, and Algeria. They remain in detention facilities run by the SDF, subject to a Syrian judicial process that is not able to prosecute them under international law, as the autonomous region is not a state—it is, as it says, a region.
These prisoners remain an active threat to the security of Syria and the western world, including the UK. They should be prosecuted in international courts in the  locations in which they are held, not their countries of origin. Prosecutions in home countries will be for Daesh membership, and not for the crimes committed in Iraq and Syria. The investigations, evidence and witnesses to their atrocities remain in the region, and that is where the international community needs to assist, but no assistance has been forthcoming. Regardless of where these people might be convicted, any sentence, as the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown has said, could be served in their country of origin, but prosecutions must be in Syria. The presence of these people is not just a drain on the society and public services of the country, but an active threat. Three months ago, a US Central Command report warned of their continuing threat to the region’s security. Last January, Daesh forces attempted a prison breakout at the al-Hawl detention centre near Hasakar, which escalated into a 10-day battle in the surrounding area.
The threat of Daesh insurgents is real. In the past year, US and coalition forces have taken part in 313 operations in both Syria and Iraq, eliminating 686 fighters. On 16 February, the Daesh leader in the autonomous region, Hamza al-Homsi, was killed by a US-led mission. Al-Homsi was not a well-known figure in the terror organisation outside of the region, but, given the efforts to eliminate him, it can be accepted that he was a legitimate threat. There was another raid just a week before. This time a US and SDF raid killed Ibrahim al-Qahtani, another Daesh official, who is understood to have planned an attack on an SDF detention facility that is holding captured Daesh fighters.
Then there are the internal displaced person camps. The hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and I visited the Washokani IDP camp in the al-Hasakeh governorate. This is a temporary “home” to more than 16,000 people who have lost their properties in parts of Syria because of the conflict between Government forces and Daesh. Living in almost 2,000 shelters, people exist mainly on the money that they borrow from friends and relatives outside of their particular area. Many of them cannot afford to feed their families and are either relying on selling their own property or asking friends for additional funds. As has been said, this is because the international community does not provide resources to IDPs or their camps, only to international refugees. The reality is that Assad is not going anywhere and nor are the people in the camps.
Human Rights Watch claims that Turkish air and artillery strikes have compounded the insecurity of the camps. Even before the attacks, at least 42 people had been killed during 2022 in al-Hawl, the largest camp, some by ISIS loyalists, and scores were killed in an attempted ISIS prison breakout. Multiple children have drowned in sewage pits, died in tent fires, and even been run over by water trucks. Then there have been hundreds of deaths from treatable illnesses. In the al-Hawl camp, there have been reports of at least 24 murders—six people in May of last year alone—including not just camp inmates but aid workers.
The second threat to the security of the region is  that the children in these camps are prime targets for radicalisation. The international community must put efforts into removing these children by repatriating them to their countries or communities of origin, while also improving conditions in the camp. The combination of Daesh prisoners and IDP camps ensures that there remains a literal Daesh army in detention in Iraq and Syria.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown for securing today’s Adjournment debate, and I make no apology for covering some of the same issues as he did in his speech. A failure to address them will have lasting repercussions for this Government. As the Prime Minister keeps telling us, he wants to stop the boats. If he wants to do that, he has to stop the violence in countries such as Syria. They need to be secure, and that can only occur if military action is stopped.
The interference by Turkey on its southern border is a major cause of instability. The international community is preoccupied by the invasion of Ukraine, but this is not an either/or situation, and attention can be shared with Syria. In November, speaking about a land invasion, President Erdogan said that the new military offensive was planned to take place
“at the most convenient time for us”
and would target the regions of Tel Rifaat, Manbij and Kobane. Will the Minister confirm that such as act, by a member of NATO, would be condemned by His Majesty’s Government?
Finally, the painful truth is that the earthquake in Gaziantep has probably bought the people of the north and east autonomous region a bit more time of peace, but we should take this opportunity to ensure that it lasts. The diversity of the region shows that a governance system can exist among people of different religions. Most ethnic Kurdish and Arab people adhere to Sunni Islam, while ethnic Syrian people are generally Syriac Orthodox, Chaldean Catholic, Syriac Catholic or adherents of the Assyrian Church of the East, and there are also Yazidis and secular groups. They can co-exist. If the international community brings stability to this region, it could act as a template for governance across the whole of Syria, and possibly other parts of the middle east. I urge the Minister not to let this chance slip by.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown (Lloyd Russell-Moyle) for securing this debate. The Under-Secretary of State for Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (David Rutley) is currently on ministerial duties abroad and sends his apologies, but it is my pleasure to be able to respond on the Government’s behalf to the issues raised by the hon. Member for Brighton, Kemptown and my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Dr Offord). I am grateful for their contributions and will try my best to respond, but as this is not my policy area, I commit to ensuring that all questions are responded to in writing should I fail to respond sufficiently.
I offer my deepest condolences to all those affected by the devastating earthquake that struck northern Syria and Turkey three weeks ago. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Wendy Morton) for leading an important debate in Westminster Hall on 23 February about the earthquake, and to the Minister of State, Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr Mitchell), who set out in detail in his statement yesterday the work that we and many countries are doing to help in that incredibly difficult crisis.
The impact of the earthquake in the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria itself was mercifully limited, but the region is nevertheless of continuing vital concern to UK interests in Syria and the wider region. It is the principal remaining battleground for the Global Coalition against Daesh, of which the UK is an integral part, against the extremist threat that lingers in Syria and Iraq. Daesh has been defeated territorially, and for that we pay tribute to the courage and sacrifices made by coalition forces, and our partners the Syrian Democratic Forces, in dealing Daesh such a terrible blow. Even without territory, Daesh’s ability to direct, enable and inspire attacks continues to represent the most significant global terrorist threat, including to the UK, our people and our interests overseas. Daesh’s major assault on a prison in Hasakah in January 2022 and other recent attacks underlined the need for that continued close co-operation between coalition forces and the Syrian Democratic Forces.
The situation on the ground in northern Syria remains complex and difficult, and the economic and humanitarian situation in north-eastern Syria is deteriorating, threatening to perpetuate the conditions under which groups such as Daesh thrive. The threat emanating from camps and detention centres is particularly acute, and I thank hon. Members for highlighting specific examples. We are cognisant of the fact that securing Daesh’s complete defeat will not be quick or easy, but our commitment to the coalition’s mission is resolute. The UK is a leading member of the Global Coalition against Daesh and, with our regional allies, we are committed to ensuring they cannot resurge in this area.
The coalition has helped to liberate more than 110,000 sq km of Syria and Iraq, along with approximately 8 million civilians. The UK is pleased to host the coalition’s communication cell, which plays an important role in countering Daesh’s extremist messages and hateful propaganda, convening the resources and expertise of other international partners as well as our own. We remain committed to advocating for the interests of the local population, including by respecting the rights of all minorities in Syria, just as we remain committed to supporting the work of the Global Coalition against Daesh, in which Kurdish communities and representatives play an important part.
With conflict, stability and security funding, we are helping to build the resilience of local communities to prevent the Daesh threat from emanating from north-east Syria, as well as helping communities to recover from the brutality of life under Daesh. We continue to offer significant humanitarian and early recovery assistance to alleviate the suffering and build the resilience of conflict-affected populations, with a strong focus on the agency of women and girls.
UK aid in north-east Syria is focused on reaching those who are most in need, providing vital life-saving assistance, and supporting conflict-affected communities to build resilience and re-establish their livelihoods. Many of those in need have been forcibly displaced, and most displaced families are led by women. May I reassure the House that our early recovery support is tailored to strengthen those breadwinners’ skills and access to jobs, while tackling the sexual and economic violence that undermines the resilience of women and their families and communities?
The UK is playing a leading role with international partners to improve conditions in camps such as al-Hawl and al-Roj, where the needs and threats are most acute. As hon. Members have highlighted, there are some difficult situations there, so improving conditions is critical.

Lloyd Russell-Moyle: I note that the brief that the Minister is reading—that is fair enough—says that we are giving the people there support. When her colleague writes to me, could he outline in particular what support is going to which camps? On the ground, we were told that there is no support for internally displaced people, and that there is still only limited support for some extremist fighter families. It would be wrong, would it not, for more support to go to people allied to Daesh than to victims of Daesh? It would be good if that could be clarified.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I have no doubt that that has been noted and we will make sure that a response is forthcoming.
I can give some information that I have to hand. In the first half of financial year 2022-23, we provided more than 100,000 medical consultations, provided mental health support to more than 4,000 people, provided 4,000 more people with sexual and gender-based violence services, and provided more than 3,000 people with sexual and reproductive health services.
Ultimately, it will be extremely difficult to tackle the challenges in north-east Syria sustainably without a political solution. That is why the UK remains committed to the Syrian political process established by UN Security Council resolution 2254. We firmly believe that that resolution offers a clear path out of the conflict, protecting the rights of all Syrians, in which civil society, women and minorities must play a role. We will continue to support UN special envoy Geir Pedersen in his efforts to speed things up. Like many of our international partners, we are frustrated by the slow rate of progress. The responsibility for that lies squarely at the feet of the Assad regime, who we urge to engage seriously with the UN-led process. We believe that that is the only path to lasting and inclusive peace.

Matthew Offord: As the Minister has acknowledged, this is not part of her usual brief, so I think that she is doing very well. The problem is that Assad has made it clear that he is not going anywhere. The conflict has now been going on for more than a decade—11 years—and we will have to come to a solution whereby we work in conjunction to ensure that people can either return or live a normal life. Last year, I visited the Zaatari refugee camp in Jordan. Those people are not going anywhere, but their lives are on hold until we come up with a solution.

Anne-Marie Trevelyan: I thank my hon. Friend for his points. Clearly, the challenges are great, but we will use all the tools at our disposal to try to drive towards lasting and inclusive peace, which we know those many citizens absolutely deserve.
The UK understands the profound importance of continuing our role as an active member of the coalition against Daesh. We will support and work alongside our allies for as long as it takes. I thank the Members of this House and the other place who continue to highlight the continuing challenges in the region, particularly in the Autonomous Administration of North and East Syria. Although I am speaking for him in his absence, I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign,   Commonwealth and Development Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield, would be happy to meet Members to discuss these issues in more detail.
I assure Members that we will continue to be a key humanitarian donor and to stand by the people of north-east Syria at this most challenging of times.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.